Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 14:22

Post #26 of 94 (1803 views)

From the WSJ last week:

Quote:

President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.
“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said. Mr. Giuliani has suggested Mr. Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fight corruption had to do with an investigation of a gas company for which his son was a director. A Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son Hunter Biden.

Suffer Well.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 14:24

Post #27 of 94 (1798 views)

jmh wrote:

From the WSJ last week:

Quote:

President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.
“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said. Mr. Giuliani has suggested Mr. Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fight corruption had to do with an investigation of a gas company for which his son was a director. A Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son Hunter Biden.

Do we really need a quote from WSJ now that we have the memo of the call?

From the Hill article:

But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

This at least give legs to the Biden issue that Dan and others want to say is all over.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 14:29

Post #28 of 94 (1783 views)

Trump is innocent!!!!

The fact that someone else might have been guilty of something proves that Trump is innocent.

Why are we talking about Trump?
Ted Bundy killed a whole bunch of people. The Democrats are ignoring it.

Trump has to be innocent.

Last edited by: Velocibuddha: Sep 25, 19 14:32

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 14:32

Post #29 of 94 (1769 views)

Velocibuddha wrote:

Trump is innocent!!!!

The fact that someone else might have been guilty of something proves that Trump is innocent.

Why are we talking about Trump?
Ted Bundy killed a whole bunch of people. The democrats are ignoring it.

Trump has to be innocent.

Check out the title of this thread. It may calm you down and give you some clarity.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 14:43

Post #30 of 94 (1743 views)

Same way that Shrub got his start... it’s whats wrong with America

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:04

Post #31 of 94 (1740 views)

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Last edited by: Slowman: Sep 25, 19 15:05

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:11

Post #32 of 94 (1732 views)

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:31

Post #33 of 94 (1724 views)

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 am only trying to keep both sides civil while allowing pursuit to ground of the truth to the entire story. Your linked references and Ace's reference taken as a whole clears this matter in my feeble mind not a wit. And yes the news is old and not all that much.

Conspiracy theories can be confounding and I hope always to steer clear. This is what I see that doesn't help either side of this story. That there is reference to Washington connected lobbyists hired by Burisma, that there are denials by congress that said lobbyists played no role in correspondence and actions by congress about said country and energy policies, that Russia has been and is involved in Ukraine's energy matters, that involvement of ownership of said company is in Cyprus, that the debunking case is woefully lacking news, that energy players with ecology ministers is a potentially explosive mix and that the subject matter expert at CSIS did not have a warm and cozy feeling about it.

This is in no way a shut case. Nor is there evidence that it is an open case. It will nag Biden because there is video and audio evidence of his playing mafia don Joe. That's all. I am not convinced that Joe acted in a corrupt way or a lawful way in support of his son or even if he knew how his actions would affect his son and his son's company.

Trump's whataboutism play in no way absolves him of his own misdeeds taking up the matter with Zelensky.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:35

Post #34 of 94 (1720 views)

ACE wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.

when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:41

Post #35 of 94 (1715 views)

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?

Of course no one includes the Trump administration's DOJ and both houses of Congress under GOP control.

Why did they do fuckall during the 2 years of complete GOP control?

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:47

Post #36 of 94 (1705 views)

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?

Why no interest? It is right in an AP article, you know the unbiased reporting that all the major newspapers reprint to inform us.

"Trump has sought to implicate Biden and his son in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son."

You see- Biden using his position to protect his son is just a conspiracy theory- no proof, no evidence, Gee nothing suspicious at all. So says the echo chamber.
Just ignore this little no evidence tidbit-
https://youtu.be/nR7uZZ6yTo4

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:49

Post #37 of 94 (1700 views)

gofigure wrote:

Your linked references and Ace's reference taken as a whole clears this matter in my feeble mind not a wit.

what you believe is your decision. don't rely on my "linked references." there are more than 100 daily newspapers with big circulations that go back at least 150 years. go to any of them. in fact, go to only those emanating from red states. i'll stand behind whatever it is they all (that is, what the large majority of them, if there is a large majority) choose to report, both in their newsrooms and in what the newspaper editorial staff (what the paper will stand behind) writes.

is that fair? because, the problem you have is one of trust. you don't know who to trust. i sympathize with that. so, forget lefty newspapers you don't trust. go to the altanta journal constitution, dallas morning news, houston chronicle, miami herald, st. louis dispatch, and so on. go to only red state papers of decent size. read what they say. don't believe me. figure out where you can go; where you can find sources you can trust.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 15:50

Post #38 of 94 (1699 views)

gofigure wrote:

This is in no way a shut case. Nor is there evidence that it is an open case. It will nag Biden because there is video and audio evidence of his playing mafia don Joe. That's all. I am not convinced that Joe acted in a corrupt way or a lawful way in support of his son or even if he knew how his actions would affect his son and his son's company.

The part in bold is the most important part. People defending Biden are wasting their time. This isn't about truth. This is about politics which is all about perception. Biden's video looks bad. And, no, it doesn't matter that many things look bad for Trump. This is not a realm of absolutes, fairness, or apples to apples comparisons. Trump has been carrying enormous momentum with his base going all the way back to 2016. Can we really say that Biden has momentum with Democratic voters? Is ANY Democrat genuinely excited to vote for Biden?

Yay?... yay?...yay?

Elections are about perception and momentum. Biden effectively has to survive two elections and, TBH, I can't say he has any momentum. He feels like Jeb Bush right now "please clap." If it weren't for the Trump hate-vote and collective attempt at Nash equilibrium on the part of Democratic voters I don't know that Biden would be on anyone's map.

The risk here is that the Trump-Zelensky thing causes collateral damage to Biden sapping whatever momentum he had thus handing the nomination to Warren which is is probably less of a safe choice for the Democrats.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 16:30

Post #39 of 94 (1670 views)

Slowman wrote:

gofigure wrote:

Your linked references and Ace's reference taken as a whole clears this matter in my feeble mind not a wit.

what you believe is your decision. don't rely on my "linked references." there are more than 100 daily newspapers with big circulations that go back at least 150 years. go to any of them. in fact, go to only those emanating from red states. i'll stand behind whatever it is they all (that is, what the large majority of them, if there is a large majority) choose to report, both in their newsrooms and in what the newspaper editorial staff (what the paper will stand behind) writes.

is that fair? because, the problem you have is one of trust. you don't know who to trust. i sympathize with that. so, forget lefty newspapers you don't trust. go to the altanta journal constitution, dallas morning news, houston chronicle, miami herald, st. louis dispatch, and so on. go to only red state papers of decent size. read what they say. don't believe me. figure out where you can go; where you can find sources you can trust.

Fair enough. I will pursue all "the debunking" news stories. As to trust, it is the WaPo and the LR. I have been around the block few times and I remember watching the Watergate hearings. My trust lies in following those that ask the tough questions. I then go with my read as to how responses are delivered to those tough questions. A news story that answers tough questions is to be trusted.

I hope to find a news source right left whatever who has done an in depth investigative look into the matter. I offer for example the election of doug Jones in Alabama. This was a direct result of the influence generated by a thorough, exhausting, very expensive and very professional journalistic investigation into allegations that may have been debunked before Bezos opened up his check book and paid for that effort. While many certainly cried bias of the Democracy dies in darkness WaPo, I had trust and faith in that news organization that this was a no shit legit story with teeth to attack all the miniscule debunkers.

I currently don't have that confidence in all sources reporting on this story. It is my wish that Bezos would open his wallet one more time for the Ukraine energy and Hunter Biden story. Sadly I don't see that happening.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 17:31

Post #40 of 94 (1644 views)

GreenPlease wrote:

gofigure wrote:

This is in no way a shut case. Nor is there evidence that it is an open case. It will nag Biden because there is video and audio evidence of his playing mafia don Joe. That's all. I am not convinced that Joe acted in a corrupt way or a lawful way in support of his son or even if he knew how his actions would affect his son and his son's company.

The part in bold is the most important part. People defending Biden are wasting their time. This isn't about truth. This is about politics which is all about perception. Biden's video looks bad. And, no, it doesn't matter that many things look bad for Trump. This is not a realm of absolutes, fairness, or apples to apples comparisons. Trump has been carrying enormous momentum with his base going all the way back to 2016. Can we really say that Biden has momentum with Democratic voters? Is ANY Democrat genuinely excited to vote for Biden?

Yay?... yay?...yay?

Elections are about perception and momentum. Biden effectively has to survive two elections and, TBH, I can't say he has any momentum. He feels like Jeb Bush right now "please clap." If it weren't for the Trump hate-vote and collective attempt at Nash equilibrium on the part of Democratic voters I don't know that Biden would be on anyone's map.

The risk here is that the Trump-Zelensky thing causes collateral damage to Biden sapping whatever momentum he had thus handing the nomination to Warren which is is probably less of a safe choice for the Democrats.

It is certain to cause collateral damage to Biden. He is toast thanks to Donald's impeaching move. Good riddance to both. Game on. The only other candidate of death is communist Bernie.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 17:39

Post #41 of 94 (1640 views)

Continuing. Why didn't trump campaign team pay for oppo research to firm like rudy's or Fusion on Biden klan. Instead he leaned on a government which is a no no to most rational thinking folks. Oh that's right he worked with Russia before.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 18:43

Post #42 of 94 (1601 views)

tyrod1 wrote:

Continuing. Why didn't trump campaign team pay for oppo research to firm like rudy's or Fusion on Biden klan. Instead he leaned on a government which is a no no to most rational thinking folks. Oh that's right he worked with Russia before.

I thought of that when I wrote about a full in depth investigation and the cost that might entail. Maybe he really is cheap. Maybe he really likes the power and gets his jollys by asking other heads of state to do his bidding for free. And rational thinking is not his strong suit.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 19:00

Post #43 of 94 (1591 views)

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.

when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.

Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gphin305] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 19:09

Post #44 of 94 (1583 views)

gphin305 wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.

when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.

Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.

you've convinced me. i'm not going to vote for biden for president if appears on the ballot. hunter biden that is. i do think that the families of candidates are windows into the parents. it's one problem i have with trump and a problem i had with sarah palin. but the cheneys, the romneys, the bushes, nothing i can really fault there. and obama, you couldn't do any better. biden, i see nothing but a stellar resume there. except for hunter, which might be the bad apple.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [getcereal] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 19:40

Post #45 of 94 (1557 views)

getcereal wrote:

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?

Why no interest? It is right in an AP article, you know the unbiased reporting that all the major newspapers reprint to inform us.

"Trump has sought to implicate Biden and his son in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son."

You see- Biden using his position to protect his son is just a conspiracy theory- no proof, no evidence, Gee nothing suspicious at all. So says the echo chamber.
Just ignore this little no evidence tidbit-
https://youtu.be/nR7uZZ6yTo4

Nice troll. Seriously.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 19:47

Post #46 of 94 (1550 views)

Slowman wrote:

gphin305 wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.

when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.

Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.

you've convinced me. i'm not going to vote for biden for president if appears on the ballot. hunter biden that is. i do think that the families of candidates are windows into the parents. it's one problem i have with trump and a problem i had with sarah palin. but the cheneys, the romneys, the bushes, nothing i can really fault there. and obama, you couldn't do any better. biden, i see nothing but a stellar resume there. except for hunter, which might be the bad apple.

You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.

https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407

Last edited by: gphin305: Sep 25, 19 19:49

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gphin305] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 20:00

Post #47 of 94 (1540 views)

gphin305 wrote:

Slowman wrote:

gphin305 wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

Slowman wrote:

ACE wrote:

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.

about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?

So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.

when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.

Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.

you've convinced me. i'm not going to vote for biden for president if appears on the ballot. hunter biden that is. i do think that the families of candidates are windows into the parents. it's one problem i have with trump and a problem i had with sarah palin. but the cheneys, the romneys, the bushes, nothing i can really fault there. and obama, you couldn't do any better. biden, i see nothing but a stellar resume there. except for hunter, which might be the bad apple.

You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.

https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407

as far as i know, joe has been married twice. his first wife and his daughter died in an auto accident. hunter and beau were also in the car and were injured. he eventually remarried. beau grew up to be an attorney and a veteran of a foreign war, a judge advocate, and died of cancer. he and his second wife have been married for 40 or 45 years. his daughter from, i think, his second marriage, worked in legal advocacy if i remember right. if i were him i'd be quite proud of the family man i'd tried to be. i would call that a pretty successful family, notwithstanding the scrutiny that his remaining son might righteously invite. you go ahead and slime his family if you want.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gphin305] [ In reply to ]

Sep 25, 19 21:38

Post #48 of 94 (1503 views)

gphin305 wrote:

You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.

https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407

Why no ellipses? Recent grammar lessons from the minders?

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [eb] [ In reply to ]

Sep 26, 19 5:27

Post #49 of 94 (1462 views)

eb wrote:

gphin305 wrote:

You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.

https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407

Why no ellipses? Recent grammar lessons from the minders?

Plus, a trump bot insinuating that another candidate’s family might be slimy is just pure fuckin gold. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Sep 26, 19 6:33

Post #50 of 94 (1442 views)

I think we should reopen the Biden investigation only after they reopen Begazi and Hillary’s emails. Also, nothing should be done on climate change until it’s been looked into.

The GOP is incredibly good at stonewalling and diverting attention. This is the same party that focused the 2004 election on John Kerry’s service record. This is the same group of people who argue that we haven’t found the missing link.

It’ll happen again.
There’s a good chance it’ll work again.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.