monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@revelette3,

Guilty of what???? Presidents have the responsibility to (1) enforce our laws and (2) to lead the conduct of our Foreign relations. Both apply equally well, whether there is political advantage or disadvantage to the President for doing so. The Democrat argument is in essence that the existence of a likely political benefit to a President acting to protect the country's interests in an issue with a foreign government, and, at the same time, enforce our laws is, in itself, a sufficient basis for requiring the President to ignore likely criminal conduct and threats to the National interest involving our relations with corrupt foreign governments.

The likely adverse effects on this country of what, as a minimum, could be described as a serious and highly visible conflict of interest on the part of a former VP, on a dependent but known corrupt foreign government, could indeed be a serious threat to our interests with respect to Ukraine, particularly following Trump's earlier decision to increase the aid and support we are providing that country.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
...the increasingly evident pattern of his repeated misuse of his office to financially benefit several members of his family is likely to grow.

Are you saying that Burisma wanted someone on their board of directors, Biden Sr. heard of this and suggested his son for the job? I hadn't heard this and would like to know more.

You hadn't heard that because you just made it up.

More likely scenario was that Burisma wanted some attention from the US and the people that lead the country. They figured giving the son of a political leader a job might give them some influence on how contracts are awarded and how money flows through Ukraine. The US has deep pockets.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

If Trump was really concerned with corruption rather than dirt on his political opponents, he would have agreed with his own diplomats which said there was a significant improvement in Ukraine's efforts to crack down on corruption. He would have wanted to continue to encourage Ukraine by giving an invite to Ukraine's newly elected President and would have given Ukraine the money which was already appropriated by congress to give to Ukraine. The Biden Bruinsma corruption conspiracy had already been debunked and our own intelligence agencies agreed that Russia was behind the 2016 democrats hack, not Ukraine.

Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to back his insane conspiracy theories of 2016 and to dig up dirt on his 2020 re-election campaign opponent. That is a fact that has been proven and was not even really disputed in the trial or by any republicans; much less defended. If Republicans were so assured of Trump's innocence, they would have welcomed witnesses and documents to prove it. Instead, republicans themselves have shown their belief in his guilt by hiding evidence and testimony at the trial of the impeachment of Donald Trump. They would have done better to allow witnesses and documents and then still voted to acquit him.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I was asking georgeob1 to explain how Biden Sr. misused his office because that's what he charged Biden with doing. I made up the hypothetical example in the hope that georgeob1 would supply further information.

McGentrix wrote:

More likely scenario was that Burisma wanted some attention from the US and the people that lead the country. They figured giving the son of a political leader a job might give them some influence on how contracts are awarded and how money flows through Ukraine.

Yes, that's what I think occurred. In which case Biden Sr. didn't "misuse his office". His son benefited from his father's position, which is a different case entirely. georgeob1 accused Biden Sr. of repeated misuse of his office to enrich his family so maybe he has knowledge of other times where this did occur. But it didn't happen with Burisma.

1 Reply

@hightor,

The flaw in your argument comes from the obvious fact that Burisma's obvious intention was to use Biden's son both as a conduit to his father to protect it's interests and, as well, to motivate his father to act accordingly to protect his rather wayward son's financial interests.

This was rather obviously knowable to Biden Sr. but he failed to act on it to protect the national interest … as was clearly his duty to do.

Secondarily this matter fits all too well into a pattern of overt actions on the part of Biden Sr. to misuse his office and influence to get financial benefits for other members of his family, very likely bey influencing government contract awards to companies that employed then precisely for that purpose.=. This is stuff more worthy of corrupt Central American governments than the United States. The equivalent has indeed happened before, but it is something we have usually suppressed.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

It's McGentrix's argument. Now you are engaged in divining Burisma's "intentions" — don't you have something more solid to go on? I don't agree with the concept of corporate personhood but I suspect that reading a corporation's "mind" would be just as difficult as cold reading a human mind. Are you admitting that you have no actual proof of your allegation?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Good point. Human motivation is a complex thing, and is never as simple and monotone as we often presume. However I am familiar with corporate governance, and generally know how such Boards react to external threats and risks. I believe you'll at least agree that the leaders of Burisma believed it was in their interest to hire an utterly unqualified foreigner who didn't even speak their language for a position on their board, and paying him a somewhat unusual $1 million per year for it.

Now, examining just what that interest might be, and considering the fact that soon after the appointment, then VP Biden, acting in his capacity as Obama's appointed leader of our relations with Ukraine, intervened forcefully to shut down a Ukrainian investigation then getting dangerously close to Burisma's affairs, I believe it is highly likely that their motivations for hiring Hunter for a seat on their Board involved motivations similar to those I described. Finally, I note that there is no other known or plausible basis for their action.

1 Reply

Is there some reason Biden cannot be corrupt? Everything points to it being true. You do not have to jump through hoops to prove it or make up stories or conversations like has been done with Trump but still proved nothing.

The fact is his son made millions for nothing and Biden did nothing to acknowledge it or stop it.

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

The fact is his son made millions for nothing and Biden did nothing to acknowledge it or stop it.[/color]

On the contrary VP Biden took a truly extraordinary action tointervene directly into Internal Ukrainian affairs on a matter and in a way that also conflicted with the interests of our country. He offered no justification whatever for doing so, and we are left with the observation this intervention significantly enhanced his son's tenure in a position on the board of a foreign company, operating in an area in which his son has zero experience and is without even basic proficiency in the language of the other members of that Board.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

On the contrary

Of course, you are correct. What I meant was Biden made no effort to rectify the situation.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I believe you'll at least agree that the leaders of Burisma believed it was in their interest to hire an utterly unqualified foreigner who didn't even speak their language for a position on their board, and paying him a somewhat unusual $1 million per year for it.

I know that it's common for corporate boards to include "celebrities" for obvious reasons; Nikki Haley was just nominated to a seat on Boeing's corporate board and I don't believe she has any experience in the aerospace industry.

(I think it was $50,000 per month — $600,000 per year.)

Quote:

...and considering the fact that soon after the appointment, then VP Biden, acting in his capacity as Obama's appointed leader of our relations with Ukraine, intervened forcefully to shut down a Ukrainian investigation then getting dangerously close to Burisma's affairs...

Is the following timeline incorrect?

Quote:

1. First off, Ukraine is a very corrupt country. This is the one thing that all sides agree on.
2. In particular, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General in 2016 was Viktor Shokin, a man so corrupt that both the IMF and pretty much every European country insisted he be removed if Ukraine wanted any assistance from the outside world.
3. At this time, Shokin was not investigating Burisma, the energy company on which Hunter Biden held a board seat. This is one of the (many) reasons he was considered corrupt.
4. Joe Biden later told the story of Shokin’s firing like this: “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Now, this might be a bit of Biden exaggeration, but it accurately describes the general attitude toward Shokin at the time.
5. A new Prosecutor General was appointed and immediately reopened the investigation into Burisma. In other words, by switching prosecutors Biden probably made things harder on his son, not easier.
6. The new prosecutor eventually reached a deal with Burisma. As with everything in Ukraine, it’s unclear if this was on the up-and-up, but in any case it happened after Trump had won election and Joe Biden no longer had any power or influence.
7. There has never been even a hint of evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. He’s a Washington lobbyist who sits on various boards and had done a few small jobs for Burisma during the Obama administration. The head of Burisma at the time was trying to assemble an “all-star” board of directors and approached Hunter Biden. Was this an attempt to curry favor with the White House? I wouldn’t be surprised. But that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, which he says was mostly about corporate governance.
8. The new prosecutor has stated many times that his investigation came up with absolutely nothing on Hunter Biden.
9. Likewise, there’s not a hint of evidence that Joe Biden ever did anything wrong.

source

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

Quote:

Is there some reason Biden cannot be corrupt?

Sure, he could be corrupt. So could Trump. But if you're going to argue that Trump must be presumed innocent without the sworn testimony of eyewitnesses then you should apply that criterion to Biden as well.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

So that’s the Biden side of the story. Your Foxbot friends will never hear any of this, so I figure it’s useful for you to have it all in one place. I assure you that there is no partisan slant to any of this. This is pure conventional wisdom, agreed to by virtually everyone outside the Trump orbit.

From your source. Nice to see they are not biased Laughing

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Most people are capable of discerning bias — it's the facts which establish the case. That's why I asked if the timeline was correct. Laughing

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

testimony of eyewitnesses then you should apply that criterion to Biden as well.

The fired prosecutor is an eyewitness. The people that saw Hunter begging for crack are eyewitnesses. Remember drug addicts are liars and manipulators, it is how they enable their habit. Politicians are also liars and manipulators, it is how they maintain the power they have. Trump is new at the game, Biden is not.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Your argument would be more appealing if there was any basis on which to Believe Hunter Biden had anything to offer any corporation operating in an area in which he had no practical experience and had no knowledge or experience even in the language of the country. In particular there is no basis on which to believe Hunter Biden had any credentials, or useful experience to offer, in the governance of any large organization of any kind.

Biden Sr's claim that he had no prior knowledge of his son's employment there is quite implausible, in view ( among other things) of his documented intervention in getting Hunter a commission in the Navy a few years earlier. Indeed his prior knowledge of it has been confirmed by Hunter himself.

Nikki Haley has a hell of a lot more experience to offer a U.S. corporation than has Hunter Biden: she speaks the language; has substantial relevant experience as Governor of South Carolina and Ambassador to the UN. Moreover she wasn't recently dismissed from government service for illicit drug abuse as was Hunter, who was being paid 66% more than Haley. You appear to be trying very hard to polish a turd.

Hunter's well-paid role in Burisma was, given then VP Biden's, assigned role as leader of our relations with Ukraine, as a minimum, a gross appearance of a serious conflict of interest on the VP's part. Moreover given the already existing pattern of VP Biden's previous interventions to secure government contracts for corporations hiring other members of his family, the notion that this was an innocent independent action defies belief.

Ukraine had been a cesspool of internecine political struggle and corruption for a decade, and correcting that was an important priority for our interest in preserving the independence of that country. Sorting out just who was more corrupt, Burisma or a previous government investigator, is at best a difficult thing to do. However VP, in any event Biden's intervention and at least, tacit endorsement of his son's role were clearly contrary to our nations interests.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Quote:

The fired prosecutor is an eyewitness.

Did he make specific accusations after he was fired for corruption and, if he did, were they corroborated?

Quote:

The people that saw Hunter begging for crack are eyewitnesses.

And what does that have to do with Burisma?

1 Reply

Quote:

"If he wins this, I think nobody should regard him as having been impeached,"

Alan Dershowitz on Hannity.

Yes. This would be consistent with the term "impeached", with the legal and historical consensus regarding prior impeachments and, of course, consistent with conservative/GOP/Fox hosts' statements over all these years regarding Bill Clinton's historical record. Am i right or am I right?

Also: memory hole opens before our very eyes.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Did he make specific accusations after he was fired for corruption and, if he did, were they corroborated?

Giuliani has a deposition from him. It is kind of funny Democrats do not believe Ukrainians anyway. Their new president said there was no pressure from Trump and the House rejected it out of hand.

Quote:

And what does that have to do with Burisma?

Who hires crackheads with no experience? That reflects on Burisma's motives.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Also: memory hole opens before our very eyes.

It is not the first hole. Nadler and Schumer forgot what they said about a partisan impeachment when it was Clinton. They also forgot that they said how much it damages a country.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know