Hunter Biden

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, for the life of me, I can't understand why the Trumptards think there is anything at all wrong with the former V.P.'s son getting ride alongs on Airforce 2 to get a measly $1.5 billion from the Chinese and a measely $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian oligarch. Clearly, Hunter achieved these results solely based upon his own business acumen and merit, and not because his father was the V.P. That's simply a conspiracy theory and more Trumpian whataboutism.

/s

No it's not that. It's the rank hypocrisy and exaggeration of the people pushing the story that bothers us.

If so, it kind of makes you wonder why Schiff et al. decided to focus on a single phone call in which Trump just so happened to mention Biden, as the centerpiece of their current impeachment quest.

The only reason there is any focus on Hunter Biden right now is precisely because Schiff decided to beat this dead horse to a pulp.

Assuming we do get to an impeachment vote, and a trial in the Senate, even if the whistle blower never testifies, Hunter and perhaps his Dad will have to testify. If only to defend their collective family honor. Hunter has been strangely quiet, although as an attorney, keeping his mouth shut is probably the smartest thing for him to do. But that leaves open the question of what he was getting paid $50,000/month for (other than the obvious "good will" with his father/then-V.P. Biden).

Hunter is a very glib fellow, he charmed his way into his brother's widow's panties, no doubt he will ably defend himself when testifying under oath during the impeachment inquiry in the House, or perhaps during the Senate trial.

It should be entertaining.

No it's not that eithe and you just perfectly proved my point. Hunter Biden traded.on his father's name. The constant lies, exaggeration and hypocrisy of those pushing the Tory are obvious.

So I need some clarity here. Is political nepotism ethical or unethical?

Depends -- was it done under Obama the Perfect, or not.

I really think you are confused that we are all over here defending Biden. I have no loyalty/affinity to Biden. But if we are going after the ethical issues with self promotion of an unqualified adult child, that is a two-way street and should apply equally to all politicians.

Assuming this to be the case, then why is Schiff focusing his impeachment inquiry on a single phone call in which Trump is seeking to investigate the Bidens?

Surely if you believe, and Schiff believes, that the Trump children & their father are involved in some form of nepotism-driven financial corruption, then why isn't THAT the focus of Schiff's inquiry?

Why are the Democrats highlighting Trump's accusations against the Bidens--regardless of whether those turn out to be justified, or not?

It's just more of the Democrat circular firing squad.

Nah. This time the Dems are doing it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming this to be the case, then why is Schiff focusing his impeachment inquiry on a single phone call in which Trump is seeking to investigate the Bidens?

Surely if you believe, and Schiff believes, that the Trump children & their father are involved in some form of nepotism-driven financial corruption, then why isn't THAT the focus of Schiff's inquiry?

Why are the Democrats highlighting Trump's accusations against the Bidens--regardless of whether those turn out to be justified, or not?

It's just more of the Democrat circular firing squad.

DP, but my sense is that the phone call record, released by the White House and confirmed by Trump and Giuliani is prima facia illegal and impeachable, it is easy to understand and doesn't get into the mutlliple layers of intregue that all of the other stories foster.

It is obvious that Trump and his children are involved in nepotism based corruption, from Ivaka's Chinese trademarks, to the millions Eric and Junior have hauled in over the past two years, to the billion Kushner got by selling out to the Saudis and UAE. For some reason, these are of no concern at all to the GOP in the Senate and for some reason, it is too confusing for the American public to grapple, but this one phone call doesn't need anything else to be impeachable, it is exactly envisioned and articulated in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution as illegal and impeachable.

[Anonymous]

Trump wasn't going after Hunter Biden because he thinks his role was unethical and Trump just has such high moral standards that he couldn't stand for that. I would actually be fine with this, but Trump (nor any other politican Dem or Rep) would never do this because he opens himself up to the same treatment of his own children.

The issue is that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to get dirt on the person he believed would be his political opponent for 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming this to be the case, then why is Schiff focusing his impeachment inquiry on a single phone call in which Trump is seeking to investigate the Bidens?

Surely if you believe, and Schiff believes, that the Trump children & their father are involved in some form of nepotism-driven financial corruption, then why isn't THAT the focus of Schiff's inquiry?

Why are the Democrats highlighting Trump's accusations against the Bidens--regardless of whether those turn out to be justified, or not?

It's just more of the Democrat circular firing squad.

DP, but my sense is that the phone call record, released by the White House and confirmed by Trump and Giuliani is prima facia illegal and impeachable, it is easy to understand and doesn't get into the mutlliple layers of intregue that all of the other stories foster.

It is obvious that Trump and his children are involved in nepotism based corruption, from Ivaka's Chinese trademarks, to the millions Eric and Junior have hauled in over the past two years, to the billion Kushner got by selling out to the Saudis and UAE. For some reason, these are of no concern at all to the GOP in the Senate and for some reason, it is too confusing for the American public to grapple, but this one phone call doesn't need anything else to be impeachable, it is exactly envisioned and articulated in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution as illegal and impeachable.

This. Its like getting Al Capone on tax evasion or taking down "The Firm" with mail fraud. Nowhere close to the biggest, worst crimes, but most provable with the most "teeth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming this to be the case, then why is Schiff focusing his impeachment inquiry on a single phone call in which Trump is seeking to investigate the Bidens?

Surely if you believe, and Schiff believes, that the Trump children & their father are involved in some form of nepotism-driven financial corruption, then why isn't THAT the focus of Schiff's inquiry?

Why are the Democrats highlighting Trump's accusations against the Bidens--regardless of whether those turn out to be justified, or not?

It's just more of the Democrat circular firing squad.

DP, but my sense is that the phone call record, released by the White House and confirmed by Trump and Giuliani is prima facia illegal and impeachable, it is easy to understand and doesn't get into the mutlliple layers of intregue that all of the other stories foster.

It is obvious that Trump and his children are involved in nepotism based corruption, from Ivaka's Chinese trademarks, to the millions Eric and Junior have hauled in over the past two years, to the billion Kushner got by selling out to the Saudis and UAE. For some reason, these are of no concern at all to the GOP in the Senate and for some reason, it is too confusing for the American public to grapple, but this one phone call doesn't need anything else to be impeachable, it is exactly envisioned and articulated in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution as illegal and impeachable.

This. Its like getting Al Capone on tax evasion or taking down "The Firm" with mail fraud. Nowhere close to the biggest, worst crimes, but most provable with the most "teeth."

No, this isn't really like that. Abuse of office is a big crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming this to be the case, then why is Schiff focusing his impeachment inquiry on a single phone call in which Trump is seeking to investigate the Bidens?

Surely if you believe, and Schiff believes, that the Trump children & their father are involved in some form of nepotism-driven financial corruption, then why isn't THAT the focus of Schiff's inquiry?

Why are the Democrats highlighting Trump's accusations against the Bidens--regardless of whether those turn out to be justified, or not?

It's just more of the Democrat circular firing squad.

DP, but my sense is that the phone call record, released by the White House and confirmed by Trump and Giuliani is prima facia illegal and impeachable, it is easy to understand and doesn't get into the mutlliple layers of intregue that all of the other stories foster.

It is obvious that Trump and his children are involved in nepotism based corruption, from Ivaka's Chinese trademarks, to the millions Eric and Junior have hauled in over the past two years, to the billion Kushner got by selling out to the Saudis and UAE. For some reason, these are of no concern at all to the GOP in the Senate and for some reason, it is too confusing for the American public to grapple, but this one phone call doesn't need anything else to be impeachable, it is exactly envisioned and articulated in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution as illegal and impeachable.

If Trump's illegal nepotism is so obvious to you, why isn't it obvious to Schiff and Pelosi, and why isn't it the focus of their impeachment efforts? You say the GOP isn't concerned about it, but it's not the GOP that's trying to impeach Trump. Do you understand how illogical your statement about this really is?

If the phone call itself is obviously impeachable, then why did Schiff feel the need to falsify its contents, at great length, in his opening statement in the DNI hearing (only to recant his lies later on during the hearing)? Why does Congress want to force the poor innocent whistle blower into the spotlight?

Why not just impeach Trump based on the phone call.

The reality is, not only is the phone call not an impeachable event, it's not even close to impeachable. Heads of State ask each other for favors--personal, political, for their countries, for any reason at all, and certainly where there are mixed motives--ALL the time. It is not prohibited to do so. In all the hubbub and blather we see constantly on the main stream media, I haven't seen a single statutory violation suggested on the part of Trump by any of the pundits who hate his guts. Much less by Schiff or Pelosi or Nadler. They are reduced to trying to claim a campaign finance violation, which is absurd.

This is all a public relations war. There won't be an impeachment vote and their won't be an impeachment trial.

The whistle blower's identity will inevitably be revealed, and he will be forced to testify publicly, and cross examined just like Blasey Ford. Only he won't have the benefit of being a pretend sex abuse victim so there will be no need for his questioners to pull any punches.

He will turn out to be a crony of Brennan, Comey, and that group of deep state anti Trumpers.

Seriously, he's now claiming he fears for his physical safety? An experienced CIA operative? Give me a break. He's gone too far out on the limb and never thought he'd be in the spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump wasn't going after Hunter Biden because he thinks his role was unethical and Trump just has such high moral standards that he couldn't stand for that. I would actually be fine with this, but Trump (nor any other politican Dem or Rep) would never do this because he opens himself up to the same treatment of his own children.

The issue is that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to get dirt on the person he believed would be his political opponent for 2020.

No, that's the false accusation that Schiff made in his opening statement in the DNI hearing, but later recanted as a "parody." But which is the major talking point of the left and the MSM. That Trump asked foreign leaders to get "dirt" on the Bidens. That's exactly what Schiff falsely attributed to the whistle blower and was forced to recant, because it's false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wasn't going after Hunter Biden because he thinks his role was unethical and Trump just has such high moral standards that he couldn't stand for that. I would actually be fine with this, but Trump (nor any other politican Dem or Rep) would never do this because he opens himself up to the same treatment of his own children.

The issue is that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to get dirt on the person he believed would be his political opponent for 2020.

No, that's the false accusation that Schiff made in his opening statement in the DNI hearing, but later recanted as a "parody." But which is the major talking point of the left and the MSM. That Trump asked foreign leaders to get "dirt" on the Bidens. That's exactly what Schiff falsely attributed to the whistle blower and was forced to recant, because it's false.

I wish it were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Assuming this to be the case, then why is Schiff focusing his impeachment inquiry on a single phone call in which Trump is seeking to investigate the Bidens?

Surely if you believe, and Schiff believes, that the Trump children & their father are involved in some form of nepotism-driven financial corruption, then why isn't THAT the focus of Schiff's inquiry?

Why are the Democrats highlighting Trump's accusations against the Bidens--regardless of whether those turn out to be justified, or not?

It's just more of the Democrat circular firing squad.

DP, but my sense is that the phone call record, released by the White House and confirmed by Trump and Giuliani is prima facia illegal and impeachable, it is easy to understand and doesn't get into the mutlliple layers of intregue that all of the other stories foster.

It is obvious that Trump and his children are involved in nepotism based corruption, from Ivaka's Chinese trademarks, to the millions Eric and Junior have hauled in over the past two years, to the billion Kushner got by selling out to the Saudis and UAE. For some reason, these are of no concern at all to the GOP in the Senate and for some reason, it is too confusing for the American public to grapple, but this one phone call doesn't need anything else to be impeachable, it is exactly envisioned and articulated in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution as illegal and impeachable.

This. Its like getting Al Capone on tax evasion or taking down "The Firm" with mail fraud. Nowhere close to the biggest, worst crimes, but most provable with the most "teeth."

No, this isn't really like that. Abuse of office is a big crime.

I agree with you. I simply meant that compared to all of the things Trump has done that I would consider impeachable, this is but one small piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wasn't going after Hunter Biden because he thinks his role was unethical and Trump just has such high moral standards that he couldn't stand for that. I would actually be fine with this, but Trump (nor any other politican Dem or Rep) would never do this because he opens himself up to the same treatment of his own children.

The issue is that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to get dirt on the person he believed would be his political opponent for 2020.

No, that's the false accusation that Schiff made in his opening statement in the DNI hearing, but later recanted as a "parody." But which is the major talking point of the left and the MSM. That Trump asked foreign leaders to get "dirt" on the Bidens. That's exactly what Schiff falsely attributed to the whistle blower and was forced to recant, because it's false.

I wish it were.

^^^ Elaborating, I wish that our president had knowledge of right and wrong and sense where to apply that knowledge.

I watched The Donald on the Apprentice and although I thought he was entertaining, he never gave the impression of having morals or sense. As president, he has continued in that vein.

[Anonymous]

Trump does have a very strong sense of right and wrong. It's wrong for the Democrats to attempt to impeach a President based on anonymous accusations not subject to cross-examination. It was wrong when they tried to do it with Kavanaugh, and it's wrong now.

What are all of you folks going to do when the "witnesses" the whistleblower claims to have relied upon, do exactly the same thing that Blasey Ford's "witnesses" did? That is, utterly fail to be able to corroborate her story?

Case in point, Volker. Do you actually believe Volker is going to testify--and he will testify--that he told the whistle blower that the President was acting in violation of the law, as to any issue, and that Volker himself was part of the coverup (by failing to report it)?

Nope, just like the Blasey Ford wrap up job, this thing falls apart as soon as witnesses start testifying.

Which is why whistleblower is so desperate to maintain anonymity.

Just like Blasey Ford tried to do initially. Just like Christopher Steele tried to do.

This trade craft stuff that these guys are so used to doing operationally, where they start up a shartstorm and leave no trace of their own involvement, simply doesn't work in such a high profile environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump does have a very strong sense of right and wrong. It's wrong for the Democrats to attempt to impeach a President based on anonymous accusations not subject to cross-examination. It was wrong when they tried to do it with Kavanaugh, and it's wrong now.

What are all of you folks going to do when the "witnesses" the whistleblower claims to have relied upon, do exactly the same thing that Blasey Ford's "witnesses" did? That is, utterly fail to be able to corroborate her story?

Case in point, Volker. Do you actually believe Volker is going to testify--and he will testify--that he told the whistle blower that the President was acting in violation of the law, as to any issue, and that Volker himself was part of the coverup (by failing to report it)?

Nope, just like the Blasey Ford wrap up job, this thing falls apart as soon as witnesses start testifying.

Which is why whistleblower is so desperate to maintain anonymity.

Just like Blasey Ford tried to do initially. Just like Christopher Steele tried to do.

This trade craft stuff that these guys are so used to doing operationally, where they start up a shartstorm and leave no trace of their own involvement, simply doesn't work in such a high profile environment.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump does have a very strong sense of right and wrong. It's wrong for the Democrats to attempt to impeach a President based on anonymous accusations not subject to cross-examination. It was wrong when they tried to do it with Kavanaugh, and it's wrong now.

What are all of you folks going to do when the "witnesses" the whistleblower claims to have relied upon, do exactly the same thing that Blasey Ford's "witnesses" did? That is, utterly fail to be able to corroborate her story?

Case in point, Volker. Do you actually believe Volker is going to testify--and he will testify--that he told the whistle blower that the President was acting in violation of the law, as to any issue, and that Volker himself was part of the coverup (by failing to report it)?

Nope, just like the Blasey Ford wrap up job, this thing falls apart as soon as witnesses start testifying.

Which is why whistleblower is so desperate to maintain anonymity.

Just like Blasey Ford tried to do initially. Just like Christopher Steele tried to do.

This trade craft stuff that these guys are so used to doing operationally, where they start up a shartstorm and leave no trace of their own involvement, simply doesn't work in such a high profile environment.

Read the complaint. You haven't read it so you don't know how and where Volker was mentioned in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump does have a very strong sense of right and wrong. It's wrong for the Democrats to attempt to impeach a President based on anonymous accusations not subject to cross-examination. It was wrong when they tried to do it with Kavanaugh, and it's wrong now.

What are all of you folks going to do when the "witnesses" the whistleblower claims to have relied upon, do exactly the same thing that Blasey Ford's "witnesses" did? That is, utterly fail to be able to corroborate her story?

Case in point, Volker. Do you actually believe Volker is going to testify--and he will testify--that he told the whistle blower that the President was acting in violation of the law, as to any issue, and that Volker himself was part of the coverup (by failing to report it)?

Nope, just like the Blasey Ford wrap up job, this thing falls apart as soon as witnesses start testifying.

Which is why whistleblower is so desperate to maintain anonymity.

Just like Blasey Ford tried to do initially. Just like Christopher Steele tried to do.

This trade craft stuff that these guys are so used to doing operationally, where they start up a shartstorm and leave no trace of their own involvement, simply doesn't work in such a high profile environment.

Hahahahahahahaha! So funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump does have a very strong sense of right and wrong. It's wrong for the Democrats to attempt to impeach a President based on anonymous accusations not subject to cross-examination. It was wrong when they tried to do it with Kavanaugh, and it's wrong now.

What are all of you folks going to do when the "witnesses" the whistleblower claims to have relied upon, do exactly the same thing that Blasey Ford's "witnesses" did? That is, utterly fail to be able to corroborate her story?

Case in point, Volker. Do you actually believe Volker is going to testify--and he will testify--that he told the whistle blower that the President was acting in violation of the law, as to any issue, and that Volker himself was part of the coverup (by failing to report it)?

Nope, just like the Blasey Ford wrap up job, this thing falls apart as soon as witnesses start testifying.

Which is why whistleblower is so desperate to maintain anonymity.

Just like Blasey Ford tried to do initially. Just like Christopher Steele tried to do.

This trade craft stuff that these guys are so used to doing operationally, where they start up a shartstorm and leave no trace of their own involvement, simply doesn't work in such a high profile environment.

Just stop until you have read the complaint. Volker isn't a source for the whistleblower. Volker is the unfortunate career diplomat who was ordered to be the go-between for Rudy Giuliani's outlaw campaign to tell Ukrainian officials what they needed to claim that they found about 2016 and Biden in order to get a meeting with Trump and get the money appropriated for them by Congress. Volker is subpoenaed to tell by whom, when, where, and how he was ordered to be Rudy's facilitator, what all crazy shit Rudy said, and what the Ukrainians had to say to him about the extortion. Volker probably also knows exactly who was involved in smearing Ambassador Yovanovitch after she rebuffed Rudy's efforts to interfere in U.S. government policy in Ukraine.