ADVERTISEMENT

Bidunce Crime Family Thread

I think what is interesting beyond the clown show of the prosecutors having different views on the deal that was supposedly hashed about by both is that Weiss showed up with a new team of attorneys replacing the ones who agreed with whistleblowers on the tax charges.This case calls out for a special prosecutor ,but if Garland does appoint one he loses control so it is a big decision, but political pressure may force him to do it.
 
Dan Coleman the Dem spokesman ( aka the village idiot ) says all calls were just father and son catching up on things like the weather.Just because Hunter chose to call his dad during a business meeting with his colleagues is purely coincidental LOL
 
From a fairness and believe in the rule of law perhaps one of the worst thing coming out is black msn who didn’t file return and owed $60,000 was sentenced to 18 months in prison and you guessed it Weiss was the prosecutor.I am sure the clown Dan Coleman has it was the weather explanation for the obvious difference in treatment.
 
@Merge, Id be curious to get you opinion on the 20+ shell companies and the multi million payments from Russian oligarchs and the subsequent transfers between the shell companies and ultimate payment to Biden family members.

I realize it is hard to discern what news is real and what news is sensational but on the surface there does seem to be some smoke here.

I'm not a forensic accountant, but I've got enough business and legal experience to state that something does not seem right.

I'm looking for a civil discussion on this and not posting this to start a feud on this board.
 
Last edited:
If it makes sense to start a another thread with a a neutral name instead of the inflammatory name used in this one, we should certainly do that.
 
Listened to an interview with Jonathan Karl who wrote a scathing book about Trump, and he was asked about Biden and this scandal. After repeating the talking points about nothing being linked directly to him, he did say that he found it odd that during Obama’s Presidency Biden made numerous trips to Ukraine visiting there more than every foreign country he visited combined.
 
It's no coincidence that the Russian invasion happened with Biden in the WH.
 
Pirata said:
@Merge, Id be curious to get you opinion on the 20+ shell companies and the multi million payments from Russian oligarchs and the subsequent transfers between the shell companies and ultimate payment to Biden family members.

I realize it is hard to discern what news is real and what news is sensational but on the surface there does seem to be some smoke here.

I'm not a forensic accountant, but I've got enough business and legal experience to state that something does not seem right.

I'm looking for a civil discussion on this and not posting this to start a feud on this board.
Click to expand...

My honest opinion is that Hunter is a scumbag and would take advantage of whatever he can and absolutely was selling “access” to Joe Biden. Joe letting that influence policy is another matter and haven’t seen anything that suggests that to be true yet.

The Devin Archer testimony seems to suggest that the “access” was the pitch but he also said he didn’t hear or see Joe do anything improper.

I get why all of these payments raise red flags and that’s why Hunter should have never been involved with these foreign deals in the first place, and why they should be investigated.

Do I think Hunter and Joe talked about business? Absolutely.
Do I think Joe did anything illegal or acted against his oath? It’s possible but my gut still says that is unlikely based on what we have seen so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pirata
I agree with your post minus your final gut feelings.

I'm not saying it is likely but also don't agree with unlikely.
 
Pirata said:
I agree with your post minus your final gut feelings.

I'm not saying it is likely but also don't agree with unlikely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I certainly could be wrong, just offering my gut opinion.
His son strikes me as someone who would do anything for money, but Joe just doesn't seem to be that guy.
In the senate for over 30 years and was never remotely close to being one of the wealthiest.

I feel like if he were looking for opportunities to exploit his position for wealth, he would have had many chances prior to being in the white house. I just have a hard time believing he's just waiting to retire from his second term at 85 years old with a $5M off shore account somewhere.
 
Merge said:
My honest opinion is that Hunter is a scumbag and would take advantage of whatever he can and absolutely was selling “access” to Joe Biden. Joe letting that influence policy is another matter and haven’t seen anything that suggests that to be true yet.

The Devin Archer testimony seems to suggest that the “access” was the pitch but he also said he didn’t hear or see Joe do anything improper.

I get why all of these payments raise red flags and that’s why Hunter should have never been involved with these foreign deals in the first place, and why they should be investigated.

Do I think Hunter and Joe talked about business? Absolutely.
Do I think Joe did anything illegal or acted against his oath? It’s possible but my gut still says that is unlikely based on what we have seen so far.
Click to expand...
Well, by President Biden's on statements he said he went into a foreign country and asked for the prosecutor who was investigating the company that was paying his family tens of millions of dollars to be fired under threat that he would take away congressional he approved funds unless they agreed to his demands. Recently, we found that the Burisima in the Ukrainians they were working with believed they had bought access to Joe Biden with the millions they paid to his family, and possibly him.

The country was the Ukraine and President Biden is on tape describing exactly what I described to you. minimally, it appears that the president was guilty of extortion and failure to register as a foreign agent based upon the facts I described above, which all are validated by a video tape of Joe Biden bragging about doing the facts I described above.

As President of the United States, he cannot be prosecuted for those crimes so the only remedy would be impeachment. At this point the question is whether Democrats will vote their conscience or take the Unseamly political position that they will do whatever they need to support their candidate regardless of this indisputable evidence. In all honesty, I think that the best path for everyone is for Democrats to go to Biden and suggest that he resign. The country gets to avoid an impeachment spectacle, while Democrats get to "claim the highroad" while having the opportunity to run a new candidate. That last part is just my opinion, but all the rest of this is well-known and undisputable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Proud NJ Sports Fan
CL82 said:
Well, by President Biden's on statements he said he went into a foreign country and asked for the prosecutor who was investigating the company that was paying his family tens of millions of dollars to be fired under threat that he would take away congressional he approved funds unless they agreed to his demands. Recently, we found that the Burisima in the Ukrainians they were working with believed they had bought access to Joe Biden with the millions they paid to his family, and possibly him.

The country was the Ukraine and President Biden is on tape describing exactly what I described to you. minimally, it appears that the president was guilty of extortion and failure to register as a foreign agent based upon the facts I described above, which all are validated by a video tape of Joe Biden bragging about doing the facts I described above
Click to expand...

That’s just not an accurate representation of the facts though.

First, everyone was calling for Shokin to be fired because he was not going after corruption.
The IMF was threatening to withhold $40 billion in aid because of the corruption.

www.theguardian.com

IMF warns Ukraine it will halt $40bn bailout unless corruption stops

Christine Lagarde says it is hard to see the programme continuing ‘without substantial effort’ to improve governance
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Shokin's deputy resigned because he was not going after corruption

"on February 14, 2016, the reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin"

and Archer testified that Burisma believed Shokin being fired was bad for them because they had him under their control.


"Mr. Goldman. Let's talk about legally, I think just pivot to that, because you had said earlier that -- I believe the direct quote is that Burisma felt like they had Shokin under control.

Mr. Archer. Correct.

Mr. Goldman. What did you mean by that?

Mr. Archer. That was like -- that was a narrative that was -- that was told to me by various of the D.C. team, that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was under control."

What Joe bragged about was him taking credit for something that was going to happen anyway because he is a politician and that's what they do.

All you are doing here is claiming that Biden did something unilaterally, which he would not have had the power to do alone, which not only had bipartisan support in the US, but was internationally supported around the world, which would have been BAD for the company Hunter was working for and you think this is somehow a smoking gun of Joe acting improperly?

A reasonable person would see the flaw in that argument.

There may be some other smoking gun which proves Biden did something untoward, but there is no evidence of that yet.
 
Merge said:
That’s just not an accurate representation of the facts though.

First, everyone was calling for Shokin to be fired because he was not going after corruption.
The IMF was threatening to withhold $40 billion in aid because of the corruption.

www.theguardian.com

IMF warns Ukraine it will halt $40bn bailout unless corruption stops

Christine Lagarde says it is hard to see the programme continuing ‘without substantial effort’ to improve governance
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Shokin's deputy resigned because he was not going after corruption

"on February 14, 2016, the reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin"

and Archer testified that Burisma believed Shokin being fired was bad for them because they had him under their control.


"Mr. Goldman. Let's talk about legally, I think just pivot to that, because you had said earlier that -- I believe the direct quote is that Burisma felt like they had Shokin under control.

Mr. Archer. Correct.

Mr. Goldman. What did you mean by that?

Mr. Archer. That was like -- that was a narrative that was -- that was told to me by various of the D.C. team, that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was under control."

What Joe bragged about was him taking credit for something that was going to happen anyway because he is a politician and that's what they do.

All you are doing here is claiming that Biden did something unilaterally, which he would not have had the power to do alone, which not only had bipartisan support in the US, but was internationally supported around the world, which would have been BAD for the company Hunter was working for and you think this is somehow a smoking gun of Joe acting improperly?

A reasonable person would see the flaw in that argument.

There may be some other smoking gun which proves Biden did something untoward, but there is no evidence of that yet.
Click to expand...
No, my post was in entirely accurate representation of the facts. What you've provided is a purported justification of the for the action. In essence, your argument is it's OK for the vice president of the United States to threaten to take away congressionally approved funds to a foreign nation unless they remove a prosecutor who is investigating a company that is paying his family, and quite possibly him, tens of millions of dollars, if "everyone thought that the prosecutor should go."

I respectfully submit that it isn't. It's not even close to being OK. It is really, really bad and a national disgrace. That's pretty much without dispute. The only question is whether the Democrats will take a principled stand or whether they will let partisanship take priority over ethics and prevail upon the president to step down for the good of the country. I would much prefer that to an impeachment and trial. I'll also submit it allows the Democrat party to rally behind a new candidate.

Regardless, I will respectfully suggest that you can't in good faith say "there is no evidence" there is an unbelievable amount of evidence and there seems to be more mounting daily. But, let's just focus on this one specific instance for a moment. You have Joe Biden on tape admitting that he threaten to withhold congressionally approved funds from a foreign nation of a special prosecutor who was investigating a company making tens of millions of dollars of payments to his family. Anyone who isn't outraged by that either isn't paying attention, or puts partisanship ahead of the integrity of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPK145 and PiratePride
CL82 said:
In essence, your argument is it's OK for the vice president of the United States to threaten to take away congressionally approved funds to a foreign nation unless they remove a prosecutor who is investigating a company that is paying hi
Click to expand...

You’re missing the point.

Joe did not have the power to stop those funds unilaterally. He embellished a story to sound more important that he was. A vice president doesn’t have that much power, you know that.

Biden was tasked with communicating a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund and had bipartisan support.

No one raised issue with it when he was in office because he was communicating US policy. If he were pushing his own interests OVER US policy, people would have objected at the time. No one did, because everyone believed Shokin was corrupt and needed to go.

And again, you’re ignoring that the republicans key witness said that Shokin being fired was bad for Burisma.
 
Merge said:
You’re missing the point.

Joe did not have the power to stop those funds unilaterally. He embellished a story to sound more important that he was. A vice president doesn’t have that much power, you know that.

Biden was tasked with communicating a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund and had bipartisan support.

No one raised issue with it when he was in office because he was communicating US policy. If he were pushing his own interests OVER US policy, people would have objected at the time. No one did, because everyone believed Shokin was corrupt and needed to go.

And again, you’re ignoring that the republicans key witness said that Shokin being fired was bad for Burisma.
Click to expand...
Come on you know that you don't need to be able to fulfill a threat to commit extortion. You just have to make a threat. He did.

He had no authorization to deny those congressional approved funds. He was the prosecutor investigating a company that paid the Biden family tens of millions of dollars. The Ukraine was threatened with the withholding of the US support if he was not fired before Biden's playing left. Biden is on tape admitting that this happened. Those are facts, and no one is disputing them.
 
CL82 said:
He had no authorization to deny those congressional approved funds. He was the prosecutor investigating a company that paid the Biden family tens of millions of dollars. The Ukraine was threatened with the withholding of the US support if he was not fired before Biden's playing left.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant to say plane there, but bluntly you should look up how this played out. You do not have an understanding of the facts.

Biden was not in Ukraine when Shokin was fired. Biden had not been in Ukraine for months when Shokin was fired. It was not something that was negotiated over hours. It was something that the US, EU and IMF had been pushing for months.
 
Reading through Archers' testimony, it seems to me there is evidence of wrong doing.

Receiving millions in exchange for access and association with the VP is the wrongdoing. Whether it rises to a ethics violations, a violation of Gifts and Entertainment, or an another crime is something for the DOJ to determine.

The legal technicality may be that the shell companies are not owned by Joe.

oversight.house.gov

Comer Releases Devon Archer’s Transcribed Interview Transcript - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
oversight.house.gov oversight.house.gov

Here is the money trail and timeline.


 
Pirata said:
Receiving millions in exchange for access and association with the VP is the wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

It’s optically wrongdoing, but not actually evidence of wrongdoing.

You can sell access all you want, it’s only a problem if Joe lets that influence direct US policy somehow. If there is a smoking gun somewhere of Joe pushing something COUNTER to US policy, then that’s where my opinion would change. Had there not been bipartisan support and international calls for Shokin to be fired for example and Biden acted alone outside of the state department, then this argument would make sense to me. That’s just not what happened though.

The same applies to Trump and all of the money flowing into him through his properties while he was in office. Trump and his family received way more than the Biden’s. It’s not an issue unless someone was able to direct US policy, and I haven’t seen a suggestion of that occurring either.
 
Merge said:
You can sell access all you want,
Click to expand...

Yes, but I believe the money would have to go to the campaign and not to the person.

Going to the person would seem to violate "Use of Public Office for Private Gain".
 
Pirata said:
Yes, but I believe the money would have to go to the campaign and not to the person.

Going to the person would seem to violate "Use of Public Office for Private Gain".
Click to expand...

Is there were evidence Joe was paid?

Even if there was (there isn’t that I’m aware of) the allegations I have see are when he was out of office and there would not be any legal issues selling access to the “brand” at that point. Also, how would you reconcile the millions to Hunter being illegal but not the billions to Kushner? Wouldn’t that be the same once out of office?

That’s the issue I have with the theories so far.
They all seem to point to Hunter being corrupt, but not really Joe.
 
Merge said:
I assume you meant to say plane there, but bluntly you should look up how this played out. You do not have an understanding of the facts.

Biden was not in Ukraine when Shokin was fired. Biden had not been in Ukraine for months when Shokin was fired. It was not something that was negotiated over hours. It was something that the US, EU and IMF had been pushing for months.
Click to expand...
Here is what Joe Biden said happened. It is what I recounted above. Are you asserting that your knowledge of the facts is somehow better than his?
www.c-span.org

User Clip: Biden Tells Story of Getting the Ukraine Prosecutor Fired

The Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Biden's son & his company was fired at Biden's request after threatening to withhold $1B in aid.
www.c-span.org www.c-span.org
 
Merge said:
Is there were evidence Joe was paid?
Click to expand...
Is evidence of direct payment necessary? If you're a store owner and I say to you I will burn down your store unless you pay my son and my brother money, is that still extortion? The answer is yes. So one wonders why you can't prove Joe got the money has become the mantra of the Democrat establishment, and you apparently.

For what it's worth there is sworn testimony that he was paid and contemporaneous documentarian evidence such as Hunter Biden's emails saying he was paid including his lamenting that he had to pay dad has his money.
 
CL82 said:
Here is what Joe Biden said happened. It is what I recounted above. Are you asserting that your knowledge of the facts is somehow better than his?
www.c-span.org

User Clip: Biden Tells Story of Getting the Ukraine Prosecutor Fired

The Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Biden's son & his company was fired at Biden's request after threatening to withhold $1B in aid.
www.c-span.org www.c-span.org
Click to expand...

As I’ve already told you it was an embellished story.

I have an understanding of the facts because I actually looked into it. You clearly haven’t because you thought he was in Ukraine when Shokin was fired, yet he hadn’t been there for months.

You can’t even acknowledge that gigantic hole in your theory of joes story being 100% accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Halldan1

Seton Hall Opens 2024-25 Season Monday Night vs. Saint Peter's

Replies
3
Views
553
Pirate Hoops Chat
Halldan1
Halldan1
Halldan1

7-foot-9 Florida recruit is about to make college basketball history

Replies
12
Views
2K
Pirate Hoops Chat
SHUSA
S
Halldan1

Pirates To Open With VCU At 2024 Charleston Classic

Replies
10
Views
2K
Pirate Hoops Chat
TommyAlly
T
Halldan1

Field Announced For 2024 Charleston Classic

Replies
1
Views
1K
Pirate Hoops Chat
Halldan1
Halldan1
M

Hope Springs Eternal from the Garden at Big East Basketball Media Day

Replies
10
Views
2K
Treasure Trove
metalpirate07
M
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back