IGX

Hunter Biden allegedly linked to multiple criminal probes

https://nypost.com/2019/12/23/hunter-bi ... al-probes/

In the Trump era, is that qualifying or disqualifying?

It qualifies you for an international investigation for corruption. And high office.

Seems like the unredacted emails come out and later that day Trump kills a bunch of Iranian senior officials.

Fortunately after his huge successes with DPRK and trade deal with China we have some super terrific foreign policy minds on the case.

Parnas dump way worse than I expected. Jesus.

Hillary’s emails, stat!

Seems like the GOP Senate doesn't want to exonerate Trump via evidence.

Evidence of what? Which crime?

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:28 pm Evidence of what? Which crime?

You may want to open up your range of preferred news sources a bit.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:28 pm Evidence of what? Which crime?

You may want to open up your range of preferred news sources a bit.

I prefer no news, but truly my two main sources are Reuters and the Beeb. Both of which have made it clear that Trump has not actually been accused of any crime, just abuse of power (undefined) and obstruction of Congress (a misdemeanor).

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:59 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:28 pm Evidence of what? Which crime?

You may want to open up your range of preferred news sources a bit.

I prefer no news, but truly my two main sources are Reuters and the Beeb. Both of which have made it clear that Trump has not actually been accused of any crime, just abuse of power (undefined) and obstruction of Congress (a misdemeanor).

The question at hand is, is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? Along with of course obstructing any effort to look into it.

He is going to be acquitted, that’s a done deal. I either want witnesses and evidence, or that it should be clear the Republicans are covering for his corruption.

Which private gain are you referring to?

Fats, is it acceptable to suspend U.S. aid ($400M) illegally to get a foreign power to deliver political dirt on a rival?

That's what happened.

I'm not going to go through each point, but in the House they specifically covered, "Is what President Trump accused of impeachable?" and then Democrats brought in multiple non-partisan constitutional scholars who said, "Of course it is." Republicans brought in a known partisan who said "Maybe not." This wasn't a close call.

Even constitutional scholars like Fox & Friends, when this story came out, said "That would be completely off the rails, but that's not what happened," only to find out later it's exactly what happened, and got to moving goal posts.

Wait...you watch Fox & Friends? My unshakeable esteem for you has sustained a serious injury.

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:36 pm Fats, is it acceptable to suspend U.S. aid ($400M) illegally to get a foreign power to deliver political dirt on a rival?

That's what happened.

That's only one possible framing of the situation. Another would be, is it appropriate for the president to withhold foreign aid contingent upon cooperation in investigating a a multinational corruption scheme which happened to involve the Bidens? Sure. After all, we all know that nepotism and corruption are what landed Hunter that job, let's not play. The man is the incarnation of liability and has no value other than his proximity to power.

Also, Joe Biden won't be Trump's political rival until he cinches the nomination. For now, Biden's rivals are Bernie and Warren.

So given that the corruption was real, the political leverage does not exist, and the tactic was commonplace...what's the big deal? Do you think we get countries to do our bidding with kind words and Christmas cards? The very purpose of foreign aid is to purchase influence.

How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections

https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five- ... nnections/

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:48 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:36 pm Fats, is it acceptable to suspend U.S. aid ($400M) illegally to get a foreign power to deliver political dirt on a rival?

That's what happened.

That's only one possible framing of the situation. Another would be, is it appropriate for the president to withhold foreign aid contingent upon cooperation in investigating a a multinational corruption scheme which happened to involve the Bidens?

That's not what he was asking for. He just wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation in public.

And he ended up giving them the money without an investigation into a multinational corruption scheme. I guess it wasn't important after all.

But let's get Bolton and Mulvaney in there, along with the documents needed to ascertain the truth.

If they announce it in public they will have to follow through with it, I presume. But if you are so interested in getting those witnesses in there, why are the Democrats refusing a witness swap?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51214457

Because Biden wasn't involved in holding back the funds in order to coerce our ally to provide a personal political favor.

Bolton and Mulvaney were.

You know that Hunter Biden is at the very center of this affair so I don't know what point you think you're making. I know that all Republicans are garbage ZOG puppets, but you actually believe that the Democrats are better. Sad!

I am pretty sure Hunter Biden was completely unaware of efforts to coerce our ally to provide a personal political favor by illegally holding back funds, and would have absolutely nothing to contribute to the case at hand (Trump's corrupt actions and obstruction) with his testimony.

Might as well subpoena Hillary's Emails one more time.

I bet Pence could give some good testimony, though. He knew.

So did Parnas.

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:08 pm I am pretty sure Hunter Biden was completely unaware of efforts to coerce our ally to provide a personal political favor by illegally holding back funds, and would have absolutely nothing to contribute to the case at hand (Trump's corrupt actions and obstruction) with his testimony.

Might as well subpoena Hillary's Emails one more time.

I bet Pence could give some good testimony, though. He knew.

So did Parnas.

The Senate is now tasked with getting to the truth of the matter. They want to know whether one of these two mutually exclusive propositions is true:

1. Trump knew there was no corruption and asked for an investigation for unspecified personal gain only.

2. Trump believed there was reason to investigate corruption, and asked in his and the country's interest.

Under those circumstances, trying to speak to the linchpin of this alleged corruption is beyond relevant, it's necessary.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:17 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:08 pm I am pretty sure Hunter Biden was completely unaware of efforts to coerce our ally to provide a personal political favor by illegally holding back funds, and would have absolutely nothing to contribute to the case at hand (Trump's corrupt actions and obstruction) with his testimony.

Might as well subpoena Hillary's Emails one more time.

I bet Pence could give some good testimony, though. He knew.

So did Parnas.

The Senate is now tasked with getting to the truth of the matter. They want to know whether one of these two mutually exclusive propositions is true:

1. Trump knew there was no corruption and asked for an investigation for unspecified personal gain only.

2. Trump believed there was reason to investigate corruption, and asked in his and the country's interest.

Under those circumstances, trying to speak to the linchpin of this alleged corruption is beyond relevant, it's necessary.

Uhh, no. Those aren't even close to being mutually exclusive.

No documents or witnesses suggest he actually wanted an investigation, by the way. Just an announcement of one.

To elaborate, if Trump was interested in corruption he would have wanted investigation 3 yrs earlier, he would have said the word corruption, he would have said he was holding aid to fight corruption, he would have asked DOJ not Ukraine to do it, he wouldn't have made Guiliani (who repeatedly stated he was serving as the President's personal lawyer) the point person, and he would not have released the aid when caught.