Oh ya, about Joe Biden being bribed ...

Jun 2018
653
471
La Pine, Oregon
Sorry, you're behind reading your talking points emails. Burisma was being investigated. There is no debate on that point; see post #90. The excuse you're meant to be using today is that they're being investigated for acts alleged at a point in time before Hunter Biden joined their board.

If I have to make both my argument and yours this is going to get tiring.

What is getting tiring is proving how stupid you are, and how you are lacking in the integrity needed to accept it:

The facts behind Trump’s bogus accusations about Biden and Ukraine

"But though Biden may have taken credit for it, this was hardly his unique idea. “Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

The people of Ukraine wanted Shokin gone as well, and demonstrated for his removal around the time of Biden’s threat. Shortly after that demonstration, Shokin was dismissed."

You trumpites may get your investigation, but you won't like it:

Ukraine promises a new investigation. It won't involve Joe Biden or his son - CNN
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Nov 2005
9,770
4,947
California
If you cannot see at least a conflict of interest on the part of Joe Biden in this episode then you are simply beyond hope.
Again, you are SPECULATING.
Do I see a possible "conflict of interest" in what you speculate? Sure.
BUT YOUR SPECULATION IS NOT REALITY. In fact, your speculation is contradicted by reality in two simple points.
a) The prosecutor was stagnating the case and Biden was trying to get somebody in place who would move forward with the investigation.
b) The allegations into company Burisma's were resolved BEFORE Hunter joined.

If Bob chose to pull the plug on his wife's life support when she is diagnosed with terminal cancer and has a $100,000 life insurance policy? Potential conflict of interest.
But when no such thing actually occurred, your story falls apart.

The profoundly lazy thing about your story is simply this. The Ukraine and Biden state that the prosecutor they wanted out was not pushing the investigation.
YOU HAVE NOT EVEN TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THIS IS FALSE. You are just ignoring that part of the story and simply ignoring the fact that given the facts as we know it, Biden would have been better served by doing nothing.
If you cannot see that simple fact proves no conflict of interest exists, then you are simply giving yet another reason for why you are beyond hope.


He had no business being involved -- even if his motives were above-board -- attempting to influence the selection of prosecutor in a case targeting his son's company. To believe otherwise is foolish beyond measure.
You are conflating the time-line to proclaim lies.
This has already been documented earlier in the thread by UDub, post #90.
Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined

Predictably, another fact you cowardly dodge.


NatMorton said:
Um, does that mean the Burisma, with Hunter on its board, would not have faced sanctions if it had been found guilty of wrong-doing?
Do you comprehend what BEFORE means?
It means the matter was settled before Hunter joined the board. This makes your conjecture irrelevant.


That doesn't matter. He had a conflict of interest.
Jesus Christ.
Do you understand what the word "conflict" means? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't say such stupid crap.

If JoeB were to push for a prosecutor to be fired when the prosecutor was bringing charges against his son, that would be a conflict of interest.
It would be an example of JoeB's interests conflicting with the natural course of things.

When JoeB pushes for a prosecutor to be fired because the prosecutor IS STAGNATING THE INVESTIGATION AND DOING NOTHING, then that is not a conflict of interest.
This is an example of JoeB acting IN OPPOSITION TO HIS INTERESTS if he had an interest in protecting his son. But this has ALSO BEEN PROVEN FALSE as the allegations into Burisma occurred BEFORE Hunter's involvement.
 
Nov 2005
9,770
4,947
California
Something else for NatMorton to ignore (or completely fail to comprehend):
But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.​
“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.​
Hunter Biden was a director on Burisma’s board from 2014-2018, according to documents filed by the company in Cyprus, where it is registered.​
Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined
(Thanks/Credit to UDub for posting the link)


Um, does that mean the Burisma, with Hunter on its board, would not have faced sanctions if it had been found guilty of wrong-doing?
It means that Burisma was no longer being investigated by the time Hunter joined its board.

2010 - Burisma is being investigated.
2011 - Burisma is being investigated.
2012 - Burisma is being investigated.
2013 - Burisma is no longer being investigated.
2014 - Burisma is STILL no longer being investigated. Hunter joins the board.
2015 - Burisma is STILL no longer being investigated. Hunter is on the board.
2016 - Burisma is STILL no longer being investigated. Hunter is on the board. Biden pushes for a prosecutor who was stagnating corruption investigations to be removed so that somebody who would proceed with corruption investigations would take his place.

Burisma cannot be found "guilty" of wrong-doing when Hunter was on the board because their investigation had concluded YEARS EARLIER.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
6,107
1,674
New England
While I'll certainly acknowledge there are few news stories more important than the possible impeachment of a US President, can we talk a bit about whether the Democrats' likely nominee is guilty of accepting a bribe?

For starters, can anyone provide an alternative, rational explanation for why Burisma would pay Hunter $50k a month when he had zero experience either at that level of management or in the energy industry?
Five months on, I’m now convinced that at least to some extent, Biden has become a casualty of the Ukraine call mess. If nothing else, the whiff of crony capitalism coming from his son being hired, sans qualifications, by Burisma had to be a turn off for at least some number of progressive leaning Democrats.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: se7en
Apr 2015
2,309
2,705
Stockport, Cheshire. UK
For starters, can anyone provide an alternative, rational explanation for why Burisma would pay Hunter $50k a month when he had zero experience either at that level of management or in the energy industry?
Public Relations.
It's not usual for companies with image problems to hire people with famous names to serve as non-executives on their boards to give their companies an air of respectability. It might be unethical but its not illegal
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en and foundit66
Nov 2005
9,770
4,947
California
Five months on, I’m now convinced that at least to some extent, Biden has become a casualty of the Ukraine call mess. If nothing else, the whiff of crony capitalism coming from his son being hired, sans qualifications, by Burisma had to be a turn off for at least some number of progressive leaning Democrats.
And in the end, for WAYYYYYYYY too many people on the right, that's all that matters...

Were the claims thrown out there against Biden truthful?
No. Furthermore, if slander actually were legally applied to political campaigns, the Bidens could have sued for much of the crap that was said against them.

But the capability of a lie to have a consequence for the victim even though there is absolutely no shred of evidence that it is in any way true...
That is what matters to Repubs.


Like I said earlier, the Repubs have a documentable / historical tactic of throwing out idiotic lies and hoping that the masses will latch on.
Claim that California had millions in illegal votes? But then Trump torpedoes the governmental investigation as it reveals this to be a lie.
But don't worry. The Repubs are targeting the gullible masses who will believe the hype and ignore the lack of truth.


Five months on, I’m now convinced that at least to some extent, Biden has become a casualty of the Ukraine call mess.
And the most ridiculous thing about your post is that sentence there...
Anybody that tracked Biden's "approval" rating will see that there is no clear drop (especially not corresponding to a time-frame of the Ukraine accusations) as NatMorton blindly believes.

Biden has never been all that and a bag of chips. The younger voters are simply (and never have been) enamored with Biden because he ignores the issues that *THEY* see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Nov 2005
9,770
4,947
California
Five months on, I’m now convinced that at least to some extent, Biden has become a casualty of the Ukraine call mess. If nothing else, the whiff of crony capitalism coming from his son being hired, sans qualifications, by Burisma had to be a turn off for at least some number of progressive leaning Democrats.
For those with a short attention span, I post the clearest and most succinct proof that NatMorton's assessment is absolute hogwash and Trump's gambit failed miserably.


In polling data, going back at least as far as eleven months ago, any match-up between Trump and Biden has Biden coming out on top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Dec 2018
6,107
1,674
New England
Public Relations.
It's not usual for companies with image problems to hire people with famous names to serve as non-executives on their boards to give their companies an air of respectability. It might be unethical but its not illegal
Because the Biden family name is so well known in the Ukraine?

It was at a minimum because of his political connection and possibly even political influence.
 
Dec 2018
6,107
1,674
New England
For those with a short attention span, I post the clearest and most succinct proof that NatMorton's assessment is absolute hogwash and Trump's gambit failed miserably.


In polling data, going back at least as far as eleven months ago, any match-up between Trump and Biden has Biden coming out on top.
My comment is not about Biden's national standing; it's about his standing with Democrats, and how's that standing looking today?