Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Probably because anybody and everybody who has already looked into this found there’s nothing to see and we all know it’s a Trump canard. It’s like birtherism; it ain’t worth our time.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
It may well be that Hunter Biden's role should be examined further. But please, please, please learn more about what the prosecutor was and was not doing before posting. He was exactly doing the opposite of looking into Burisma.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Are you for real? Nobody is interested in what the Bidens might have done? What planet are you on?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Because as I have said over and over in many threads on this site, THEY ALL DO IT. Down deep, even those that claim some grandiose notion politicians are great, selfless servants of the public; we all realize they are all corrupt and use their power for personal gain. (BIDEN AND HUNTER SAY Hi!)
It's just that when Trump has someone stay at a hotel and his company makes money off it, they can't stand it because it's so out in the open. Biden's actions just show us I was right all along. They all do it....
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Calling gphin . Sounds like you have another interested party. Serious, there are a few of us beyond Trump who would like to see Biden taken down. Why did Trump just go to the head of the line and become the story here? He can not get out of his own way.
Could you cool your jets for a bit slownomo, this one belongs to gphin .
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?the ukraine had a prosecutor who was famously corrupt, infamously corrupt, and would not bring corruption cases. the U.S., along with a number of western european countries, were hitting themselves in their temples with ball peen hammers over this guy. finally biden (joe) put his foot down (in an action that neither party faulted) and said we aren't sending you jack diddly in aid if you don't replace this guy. so that guy got replaced.
now, one of the guys not getting investigated by the corrupt prosecutor was biden's son. what VP biden did was help force the ouster of the prosecutor who was not prosecuting his son, nor the firm that hired his son. that prosecutor was replaced by one who would take up legitimate prosecutions. this has been covered pretty extensively, and was covered in articles going back months and years, without objection by anyone (until rudy cooked this up and trump bought in).
if you can tell me to what venal end VP biden took the action he took, i'm all ears.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
There is interest. But it should be done fairly, with no political motivations, by a investigative body like the FBI.
Not because the US president is clearly leaning on a potentially corrupt Ukrainian politician for political gain.
Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Not because the US president is clearly leaning on a potentially corrupt Ukrainian politician for political gain.
Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
you have no clue slowman.. you really dont.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Guffaw]
[ In reply to ]
Guffaw wrote:
There is interest. But it should be done fairly, with no political motivations, by a investigative body like the FBI. Not because the US president is clearly leaning on a potentially corrupt Ukrainian politician for political gain.
There is interest among some only because Trump is scared of Biden and said there should be. In better times I'd hope the time of investigative bodies like the FBI would be reserved for potential crimes they had independent evidence had ever actually occurred.
"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Biden was quoted as saying he had no idea of his son's dealings in Ukraine........
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but
The old "but" rears it's head again.
I think there are a lot of people, including the President and Guliani who is more than interested in what the Biden's did and my guess is that interest will grow exponentially in the coming days.
There is also the little fact that we are talking about what a President is doing which should take precedent over what someone not currently in office did. The Biden's should and will be investigated fully but where would you put your energy if this story came out in the last few weeks and involves a sitting President?
The old "but" rears it's head again.
I think there are a lot of people, including the President and Guliani who is more than interested in what the Biden's did and my guess is that interest will grow exponentially in the coming days.
There is also the little fact that we are talking about what a President is doing which should take precedent over what someone not currently in office did. The Biden's should and will be investigated fully but where would you put your energy if this story came out in the last few weeks and involves a sitting President?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [TriFortMill]
[ In reply to ]
TriFortMill wrote:
Biden was quoted as saying he had no idea of his son's dealings in Ukraine........case closed then... surely he just didn't remember.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
Slowman wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
you have no clue slowman.. you really dont.
clue me in then.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
For the same reason no one got in any trouble at the DNC for tilting the primary for Hillary.
For the same reason on one at the DNC or CNN got in trouble for providing debate questions to the Clinton team.
For the same reason on one at the DNC or CNN got in trouble for providing debate questions to the Clinton team.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
Slowman wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
you have no clue slowman.. you really dont.
Can you clue us in, please?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Cavechild]
[ In reply to ]
Because Biden is old,
Because he lost a family member while in office.
Because he has no chance of winning after the other Dems cannibalize each other once again on stage.
Plus, Hunter Biden did Coke- what's not to like about that?
In February 2014, Biden was discharged from the navy reserve after testing positive for cocaine use. Biden claimed that he had ingested the cocaine involuntarily, but declined to contest the discharge before an appeals panel.
Because he lost a family member while in office.
Because he has no chance of winning after the other Dems cannibalize each other once again on stage.
Plus, Hunter Biden did Coke- what's not to like about that?
In February 2014, Biden was discharged from the navy reserve after testing positive for cocaine use. Biden claimed that he had ingested the cocaine involuntarily, but declined to contest the discharge before an appeals panel.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Cavechild]
[ In reply to ]
Cavechild wrote:
For the same reason no one got in any trouble at the DNC for tilting the primary for Hillary. For the same reason on one at the DNC or CNN got in trouble for providing debate questions to the Clinton team.
I am confused.
Is the answer because those things:
1) Don't involve the president
2) Aren't illegal
3) Are not relevant to the current discussion
4) Are brought up as part of a strategy to steer the conversation away from more pressing and serious examples of corruption.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member.
At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Velocibuddha]
[ In reply to ]
I am confused.
I guess you slept through 3 years of the Democrats screaming Russia Russia Russia,
I guess you slept through 3 years of the Democrats screaming Russia Russia Russia,
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it, it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
the Biden thang has been looked into by US and foreign gov'ments - and other organization. If Trump knows something he should spit it out and not simply speak in inuendos.
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.