VP Biden’s quid pro quo threat to Ukraine...

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
I personally consider it a big deal, because the truth is that Hunter Biden - and any other children or close associates of those in government - enriching themselves through work for foreign interests - legally or not - is entirely unethical (and should be illegal, period). I personally have reduced my favorability of Joe Biden, in turn, even if he doesn't directly control the life of his son, because I feel Mr. Biden should have done something to get his son out of that role, in the name of ethics.

However, the RW conspiracy that Joe Biden assisted his son is false; and that is the point of my message. An unethical act does not equal a false, debunked accusation of impropriety toward the father, for which there has been zero evidence of the wrongdoing accused by RW-dom to date. As for Trump, if you applied even a tiny, itsy bitsy portion of the scrutiny you have for any Democrat/non-RWer to him and his cohorts in crime, you wouldn't be such a fanboy and you'd make far better contributions to the Gopherhole OT Board.
What the Bidens did was blatantly unethical. What Giuliani was doing was investigating whether it is just unethical or something more. But that was NOT the reason Giuliani was in the Ukraine. Ukraine was at the foundation of the effort to frame Trump. It will be shown that the DNC and Obama administration were working to get Manafort under investigation starting just before he joined the Trump campaign to work for free. It used to be HOLY WORK to investigate US election interference such as is alleged in Ukraine. But it turns out that Dems only want this type of investigation run against Trump. They don't actually care about election interference because....actually the Dems were the ones doing it. Not Trump.

By the way this January 2017 Politico article gives some of the background on the efforts of the DNC to collude with Ukraine:https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Biden popped up once Giuliani started kicking the tires of corruption in the Ukraine and people there started to open up about what had happened back in 2016. Notice that Trump did not mention it while it was only in the investigation stage and it may not have arisen except for the fake WB controversy that revealed that Giuliani was uncovering Biden's corruption. But prior to that he and Giuliani were not leaking out stuff about Biden corruption. You have only your own side to blame here for this boomerang.
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,502
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,603
Reaction score
871
Points
113
For anybody that has followed the story (apparently not you or MG), this was a well known contention.

Just b/c somebody reports this, doesn’t mean that the relationship wasn’t a conflict of interest and/or should never have occurred, or that there aren’t other forces at work. As the story concludes, it hasn’t been debunked, as Biden has claimed, and it hasn’t been investigated by the appropriate authorities.

It is entirely possible that Shokin was fired for legitimate reasons, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility of Biden’s quid pro quo also being connected to ending the investigation of Burisma. I don’t see anybody giving Trump the benefit of the doubt for having other totally legitimate reasons for withholding aid, that being his concern about Ukraine corruption and European countries lack of aid for military resources, as well as the alleged personal benefit of investigating the DNC and Biden corruption.

And, if it is just an appearance of conflict of interest, that’s a ”big f’n deal” to quote Joe Biden. Joe Biden said early in his Senate career that he wouldn’t even own one stock b/c of his concern for conflicts of interest. Now, his son is profiting solely off of his dad’s name to the tune of millions of dollars though he has no qualifications for holding such a position. It appears to be an attempt to buy influence. No VP should be in charge of Ukrainian issues when his son is on the board of known corrupt company in a corrupt country’s government.
It appears you are suddenly concerned about "ethics". I'll believe that you are actually concerned about ethics, as opposed to simply being a Republican Party/Trump fanboy, when you begin to criticize the massive ethics violations of the Trump administration, his children, his friends, his acquaintances, and those around him. Until you can show ability for non-partisan judgment, I don't think that your lamenting of the questionable ethics of the son of Joe Biden holds much weight, in comparison. Time for you to be fair for a change.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,603
Reaction score
871
Points
113
What the Bidens did was blatantly unethical. What Giuliani was doing was investigating whether it is just unethical or something more. But that was NOT the reason Giuliani was in the Ukraine. Ukraine was at the foundation of the effort to frame Trump. It will be shown that the DNC and Obama administration were working to get Manafort under investigation starting just before he joined the Trump campaign to work for free. It used to be HOLY WORK to investigate US election interference such as is alleged in Ukraine. But it turns out that Dems only want this type of investigation run against Trump. They don't actually care about election interference because....actually the Dems were the ones doing it. Not Trump.

By the way this January 2017 Politico article gives some of the background on the efforts of the DNC to collude with Ukraine:https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Biden popped up once Giuliani started kicking the tires of corruption in the Ukraine and people there started to open up about what had happened back in 2016. Notice that Trump did not mention it while it was only in the investigation stage and it may not have arisen except for the fake WB controversy that revealed that Giuliani was uncovering Biden's corruption. But prior to that he and Giuliani were not leaking out stuff about Biden corruption. You have only your own side to blame here for this boomerang.
I know you're trying hard, here, beeg, but what you posted here, and most of your posts on the OT Board are just garbage and nonsense. Trust me when I say it pains me to say this, because I like you, and I consider you one of the best posters on the sports boards.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
I know you're trying hard, here, beeg, but what you posted here, and most of your posts on the OT Board are just garbage and nonsense. Trust me when I say it pains me to say this, because I like you, and I consider you one of the best posters on the sports boards.
Thanks...I think. But break it down for me, my good man, what in my post was garbage? If it is garbage it should be easy for you to point out exactly what. I don't think you can actually refute anything I said there. I can back it all up.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,639
Reaction score
1,695
Points
113
I personally consider it a big deal, because the truth is that Hunter Biden - and any other children or close associates of those in government - enriching themselves through work for foreign interests - legally or not - is entirely unethical (and should be illegal, period). I personally have reduced my favorability of Joe Biden, in turn, even if he doesn't directly control the life of his son, because I feel Mr. Biden should have done something to get his son out of that role, in the name of ethics.

However, the RW conspiracy that Joe Biden assisted his son is false; and that is the point of my message. An unethical act does not equal a false, debunked accusation of impropriety toward the father, for which there has been zero evidence of the wrongdoing accused by RW-dom to date. As for Trump, if you applied even a tiny, itsy bitsy portion of the scrutiny you have for any Democrat/non-RWer to him and his cohorts in crime, you wouldn't be such a fanboy and you'd make far better contributions to the Gopherhole OT Board.
How on earth can you conclude it’s false? There’s plenty of evidence already known. There no proof yet, but Rudy and others claim to have sworn affidavits. There’s evidence that Hunter and associates rushed to meet the new prosecutor, which would seem unnecessary if it had been dismissed.
And there’s the question of WHY Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor. Was this a typical action of the Obama admin? A single prosecutor in a foreign country commanding this type of attention? Any other examples in 8 years that come close?
False says cnc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,502
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
How on earth can you conclude it’s false? There’s plenty of evidence already known. There no proof yet, but Rudy and others claim to have sworn affidavits. There’s evidence that Hunter and associates rushed to meet the new prosecutor, which would seem unnecessary if it had been dismissed.
And there’s the question of WHY Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor. Was this a typical action of the Obama admin? A single prosecutor in a foreign country commanding this type of attention? Any other examples in 8 years that come close?
False says cnc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hunter never met with any prosecutor.

The question of why the Obama admin wanted Shokin fired has been discussed at length in this thread. It was a view shared by other European officials.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
530
Points
113
Politico has an article that exposes the communication thread of the circle of players in the impeachment probe. The communication loop are the lawyers. The lawyers provide the players an untouchable loop of secure and out of reach communication. Except, now the network is exposed and even the lawyers are subject to the investigation. It was a clever cover and a type of encryption that I would never have thought would be means of securing communication. But, it all makes sense in the age of cyber communication being tracked by the NSA for international communication of foreign threats, then it makes sense that you would put your communication structure in a place the NSA would have a hard time getting a FISA warrant for -- legal communication between lawyers. So, I am impressed at the lengths the Russians used to make the communication unreachable. Well, now that the lid is off and exposed, they are fair game and months or captured data can now be examined.

I have to admit, the reporters at Politico are top notch investigative journalists. And, when the history of this period is written, it will read like a best selling novelist thought it up. Grisham would have a field day on this.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,703
Reaction score
1,495
Points
113
How on earth can you conclude it’s false? There’s plenty of evidence already known. There no proof yet, but Rudy and others claim to have sworn affidavits. There’s evidence that Hunter and associates rushed to meet the new prosecutor, which would seem unnecessary if it had been dismissed.
And there’s the question of WHY Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor. Was this a typical action of the Obama admin? A single prosecutor in a foreign country commanding this type of attention? Any other examples in 8 years that come close?
False says cnc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is an excellent and practical point. Why this one guy? Why not turn the entire prosecutors office over? Why not other pointmen and department heads? Did they rid all corruption by ousting this one guy?

As Giuliani explains it, this dude, Shokin, is not living the high life. If he was corrupt, he wasn’t getting paid much for it. On the other hand, his successor was doing very well before he was replaced. Drives a Bentley.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,502
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
Politico has an article that exposes the communication thread of the circle of players in the impeachment probe. The communication loop are the lawyers. The lawyers provide the players an untouchable loop of secure and out of reach communication. Except, now the network is exposed and even the lawyers are subject to the investigation. It was a clever cover and a type of encryption that I would never have thought would be means of securing communication. But, it all makes sense in the age of cyber communication being tracked by the NSA for international communication of foreign threats, then it makes sense that you would put your communication structure in a place the NSA would have a hard time getting a FISA warrant for -- legal communication between lawyers. So, I am impressed at the lengths the Russians used to make the communication unreachable. Well, now that the lid is off and exposed, they are fair game and months or captured data can now be examined.

I have to admit, the reporters at Politico are top notch investigative journalists. And, when the history of this period is written, it will read like a best selling novelist thought it up. Grisham would have a field day on this.
I assume you're talking about this article about how Dmitry Firtash and John Solomon have the same lawyers?

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...lawyers-joe-digenova-victoria-toensing-056643



 
Last edited:

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,277
Reaction score
1,132
Points
113
All a smokescreen to distract from the only thing that matters. Barr commissioned John Durham to investigate the genesis of the Russia investigation into Trump. Durham is getting too close for comfort. We see the CIA claiming they were just following orders from the WH. We see the CIA claiming the FBI was responsible for verifying the dossier, not the CIA, etc. All the other lying, sketchy behavior, horrifying texts, secret meetings, etc. that went on for years can be explained away as plausible deniability. "We were so deep-deep-deep undercover, that no one knew what we were doing & we had to lie to all oversight". What they can't explain away is WHY they launched an absolutely unprecedented investigation into a sitting POTUS?

NYT (FBI mouthpiece), is now reporting the Durham 'Administrative Review' has turned into a 'Criminal Investigation'.

Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
All a smokescreen to distract from the only thing that matters. Barr commissioned John Durham to investigate the genesis of the Russia investigation into Trump. Durham is getting too close for comfort. We see the CIA claiming they were just following orders from the WH. We see the CIA claiming the FBI was responsible for verifying the dossier, not the CIA, etc. All the other lying, sketchy behavior, horrifying texts, secret meetings, etc. that went on for years can be explained away as plausible deniability. "We were so deep-deep-deep undercover, that no one knew what we were doing & we had to lie to all oversight". What they can't explain away is WHY they launched an absolutely unprecedented investigation into a sitting POTUS?

NYT (FBI mouthpiece), is now reporting the Durham 'Administrative Review' has turned into a 'Criminal Investigation'.

Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
Oh come on man- you have to be wearing a tin foil hat to think that the Russia investigation had anything criminal going on in it...:)

Interesting day...
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,703
Reaction score
1,495
Points
113
NYT (FBI mouthpiece), is now reporting the Durham 'Administrative Review' has turned into a 'Criminal Investigation'.

Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html
And Schiff and Nadler are already claiming that this is Barr doing Trump’s bidding and attempting to get retribution.

Never mind that Durham has investigated and convicted Democrats and Republicans alike. But now Durham is about to be smeared too.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
And Schiff and Nadler are already claiming that this is Barr doing Trump’s bidding and attempting to get retribution.

Never mind that Durham has investigated and convicted Democrats and Republicans alike. But now Durham is about to be smeared too.
They will stop at nothing, the stakes are that high. There are a LOT of dirty hands on the D side. Lots to cover up.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,277
Reaction score
1,132
Points
113
And Schiff and Nadler are already claiming that this is Barr doing Trump’s bidding and attempting to get retribution.

Never mind that Durham has investigated and convicted Democrats and Republicans alike. But now Durham is about to be smeared too.
There is no limit to what they will do, to stop what's coming.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
Yes, I'm sure the timing of this news is totally unrelated.
And there it is! :) :)

Actually you are closer to the truth than usual here. The timing of the impeachment "inquiry" is related to the Durham probe- you have that part right.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,639
Reaction score
1,695
Points
113
Yes, I'm sure the timing of this news is totally unrelated.
Howie will come up with a cute nickname to destroy his credibility. Deceivin Durham? Just like that awful Lyin Bill Barr burying that Mueller report by publicly releasing it. They’re bad!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,502
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
Howie will come up with a cute nickname to destroy his credibility. Deceivin Durham? Just like that awful Lyin Bill Barr burying that Mueller report by publicly releasing it. They’re bad!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, imagine someone coming up with cute nicknames to disparage someone who threatened them. What a low-class move, and one that is clearly a sign of an inferior intellect!

And certainly, anyone who would try to destroy the credibility of an investigator is not to be trusted. That's obviously a sign of a warped mind.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
530
Points
113
Trap set and ...

Yes, imagine someone coming up with cute nicknames to disparage someone who threatened them. What a low-class move, and one that is clearly a sign of an inferior intellect!

And certainly, anyone who would try to destroy the credibility of an investigator is not to be trusted. That's obviously a sign of a warped mind.
...capture.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
Yes, imagine someone coming up with cute nicknames to disparage someone who threatened them. What a low-class move, and one that is clearly a sign of an inferior intellect!

And certainly, anyone who would try to destroy the credibility of an investigator is not to be trusted. That's obviously a sign of a warped mind.
Mueller? Mueller? At the start of the investigation most righties were saying Mueller was a good man and that the truth would be found. Do I now think Mueller was corrupted and used by the left? Yes. I would love to think that it is because he is a shadow of his former self and he got railroaded by his staff. I doubt it.

Yes it is bad to call out an investigator as corrupt unless said investigator turns out to be crooked. When you make the accusation, it needs to be correct. That is something you have failed at so many times these past few years regarding all things Trump. The truth is kind of crucial here. Not all investigators are good or pure- see Strzok for example. I will be betting on Barr and Durham to get justice. You will be on the side hoping that there is no justice. I really like where I stand.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,639
Reaction score
1,695
Points
113
Yes, imagine someone coming up with cute nicknames to disparage someone who threatened them. What a low-class move, and one that is clearly a sign of an inferior intellect!

And certainly, anyone who would try to destroy the credibility of an investigator is not to be trusted. That's obviously a sign of a warped mind.
My issue is not with the nickname. My issue is with Howie's constant whining that Trump is surrounded by criminals and unqualified people, and then rips into people like Bill Barr, who is not a "Trumpster," who has plenty of credibility built up in his career, but who in doing his job is helping Trump. That's the definition of TDS.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,837
Reaction score
2,425
Points
113
Neck deep in your own delusion? Whatever floats your boat.
Good. You are making a prediction that Barr will find nothing. Excellent, I am glad you finally have the guts to weigh in and say something, rather than just criticize someone else's position. I have you down for being fully in the jtf, howie, cruze camp.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,165
Reaction score
1,957
Points
113
Remember how excited hyper-cons got when they found out it was the esteemed Robert Mueller that was assigned as the special council?
 
Top Bottom