Lol, your entire defense is that you know better than President Biden who, in his own words, relayed the facts of what happened?
OK then.
Bidunce Crime Family Thread
- Thread starter Proud NJ Sports Fan
- Start date
OK then.
First, no one has suggested that Joe did that.
Second, the holding money for the “big guy” was on 2017 after Joe was out of office and would have been legal at the time.
If it were while Joe was in office, it would be illegal but yes, you would still need to be able to prove that Hunter actually held money for Joe somewhere for there to be a crime.
And if I recall, that specific deal fell trough so there was no payment.
Although I'm never looked I'm confident that payments to the immediate family would suffice. If I recall, you don't even need payments, threats attempting to induce beneficial to do a governmental act will suffice.
Joe was in fact in office when the event we're talking about occurred.
I extortion does not have to be effective to be a crime.
In all honesty, you don’t have a handle on the facts here. You’re making up your own scenario to meet a legal standard, but no one has even alleged those circumstances.
The payments to the “big guy” were related to 2017, and that deal fell through.
The payments to Hunter prior to that are not a problem to Joe unless you can prove that Joe did something in his position because of those payments.
So far, there is no evidence of that. Your allegation here was his story which I have proved to you was embellished and you ignore that fact.
You’re not discussing this in good faith because your mind is made up. My mind could be changed if that’s facts showed I was wrong. Yours can’t.
Lol, my handle on the fax is based upon vice president Bidens statement. Your argument is, apparently, "he certainly made a public admission to a crime, but I'm sure he just got the facts wrong."
That's really not much of an argument, is it? Regarding arguments in good faith, when you say things like "there is no evidence" of Biden wrongdoing, you were either being deliberately disingenuous or you are grossly uninformed. I don't think it is the latter. There is a lot of evidence, and more is coming out daily. Now, you may find that not to be credible, I do, but certainly you may not, but repeatedly saying there is no evidence, just is not creditable.
The timeline I saw indicated some payments were made during the time he was VP.
Yes, due to the shell company payments it may not be clear that he directly received the money. That remains to be seen and hopefully will be investigated. I am curious to see who actually owns these shell companies.
Last edited:
I haven't looked into but it has nothing to do with Joe's situation. Because someone else committed a crime does not make another's crime ok. Correct?
Cue Cern for a whataboutism claim. LOL
If Kushner committed a crime, he should be held accountable.
Last edited:
Which again, I have proven to you were not facts, but embellishments.
Biden said he was in Ukraine at the time. He wasn’t.
Biden’s story, as many of his other stories (including his own son dying in Iraq) was just made up.
How do I know? Because I actually read the stories of what was happening at the time. There were protests in the streets of Ukraine for them to fire Shokin. The EU and IMF were pressing Ukraine to fire Shokin for months.
Biden told an embellished story to take credit and sound more important than he was. That’s it.
Of course not, I’m just not sure what crime is being alleged.
Biden as a private citizen in 2017 would be free to do what he wanted. As would Trump and Kushner in 2021.. it’s just hard to understand how anyone can possibly say one is worth investigating but the other isn’t outside of a political view. Either they both are or both aren’t.
If you’re talking about while in office, then there is just no evidence pointing to involvement by Joe other than Hunter being able to reach Joe by phone, or payments to Joe.
Again though, I’m not rooting for an outcome here. This is just how I see it as of now. I’d prefer Biden not be on the ticket for 2024, so I really wouldn’t mind that much of this resulted in him bowing out. So far though, every “bombshell” from republicans on this has been pretty weak.
All right, let me simplify. If the statement made by President Biden is true did he commit a crime? Was his threatening to withhold congressionally approved funds unless the Ukraine fire prosecutor that was investigating a company that was paying his family, and possibly him, tens of millions of dollars legal?
If the answer to that is no, and that is the answer, then explain how protests in the street somehow magically made it legal.
I’ll play along even though as I have proven, what he said was not an accurate story. It’s a very easy answer here.
If Biden was pushing his own agenda AGAINST US policy, yes.
If he was communicating US policy, as supported by congress, the state department and president, then no.
He was doing the latter. Plenty of evidence to support that.
Progress.
Does the vice president of the United States have the ability to permanently withhold payments to a foreign nation that were approved by Congress?
Here is a series of payments made while Joe was VP.
If the payments were made contingent on access to Joe of support of Joe, then I believe that is a crime. Even though the payments were made to shell companies not directly associated with Joe, the association with his son would be enough.
To me it is a stretch that Hunter had anything of substance to offer the payees other than access to Joe or endorsement from the "brand".
You replied directly to me. I have neve said one was worth investigating over the other. I have said the opposite. If you did not direct that at me, then I agree.
Neither am I. I'd like to see the law win.
Sounds like rooting.
. In fairness, I too have a preference and that would be that Joe finish his term and then not run. I'd also like to not have Trump elected but would like most of his policy rejuvenated.Overall, I think it is reasonable to suspect that something is rotten in Denmark.
I acknowledge the political side of the viewpoints people hold including yours and mine.
You're so passionate about this issue and yet haven't actually researched it.
That loan had not yet been approved by congress. This was for a 3rd billion dollar loan which would be conditioned on their commitment to rooting out corruption.
Commerce secretary announced the conditioned loan in Ukraine before Biden spoke on the issue.
Pritzker: Third $1 billion US loan guarantee to Ukraine will be conditioned on 'concrete progress in fighting against corruption' - Oct. 27, 2015
Editor's Note: The following are remarks by U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker at a joint press… - Oct. 27, 2015. By Kyiv Post
"As part of the United States’ commitment to working with international partners to ensure Ukraine has the support it needs to continue making progress on reforms, today I am pleased to announce that President Obama, working with our Congress, intends to move forward with a third, $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine in the coming months.
This fulfills a U.S. commitment to consider providing a third $1 billion loan guarantee in late 2015 if conditions warrant.
Today, I have had the opportunity to discuss with President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk how the United States and Ukraine can use the third $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to support continued progress in advancing reforms, including reforms that will be important to unlock international investment in Ukraine and lay the groundwork for return to growth.
The U.S. loan guarantee will be conditioned on Ukraine’s progress on implementing its economic reform program, including of course adherence to the IMF’s program and concrete forward momentum in the ongoing fight against corruption."
Biden later communicated the same stance. It wasn't up to Biden. It was the police of the entire Obama administration and was ultimately approved by congress in 2016.
Not trying to be rude here, but you have gotten so much just factually incorrect.
Take your time and read up on the issue if you really want to understand what happened.
May seem like a nitpick, but that is not illegal for Joe.
That could be a FARA violation for Hunter depending on the circumstances, but if Hunter is selling "I know XYZ and I can help you navigate US relationships because of my relationship to the VP" That is not illegal for Joe.
If Hunter is selling "I can get you in the room with my father who will help you and your business" That is not illegal for Joe until Joe actually gets in the room and helps them by trying to direct US policy to help them.
Hunter can sell whatever he wants, but it isn't an issue for Joe unless Joe did something illegal on his end.
Bobulinski and Archer both testified that Joe didn't discuss business, so I just don't see where those dots are going to connect.
Lol, I don't want to be rude either, but you seem to conveniently avoid answering the bulk of the questions I've posed to you when they are inconvenient. That's OK, you get to. You have misstated legal requirements, avoiding elements that are inconsistent with the position you're advocating . You repeatedly make what have to be knowingly full statements such as "there is no evidence of Biden wrongdoing." You seem far more intent on carrying the presidents water then on having a serious discussion. Again, that's fine, but frankly, the preaching of the last couple of your posts is, well, laughable.You're so passionate about this issue and yet haven't actually researched it.
That loan had not yet been approved by congress. This was for a 3rd billion dollar loan which would be conditioned on their commitment to rooting out corruption.
Commerce secretary announced the conditioned loan in Ukraine before Biden spoke on the issue.
Pritzker: Third $1 billion US loan guarantee to Ukraine will be conditioned on 'concrete progress in fighting against corruption' - Oct. 27, 2015
Editor's Note: The following are remarks by U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker at a joint press… - Oct. 27, 2015. By Kyiv Postarchive.kyivpost.com
"As part of the United States’ commitment to working with international partners to ensure Ukraine has the support it needs to continue making progress on reforms, today I am pleased to announce that President Obama, working with our Congress, intends to move forward with a third, $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine in the coming months.
This fulfills a U.S. commitment to consider providing a third $1 billion loan guarantee in late 2015 if conditions warrant.
Today, I have had the opportunity to discuss with President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk how the United States and Ukraine can use the third $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to support continued progress in advancing reforms, including reforms that will be important to unlock international investment in Ukraine and lay the groundwork for return to growth.
The U.S. loan guarantee will be conditioned on Ukraine’s progress on implementing its economic reform program, including of course adherence to the IMF’s program and concrete forward momentum in the ongoing fight against corruption."
Biden later communicated the same stance. It wasn't up to Biden. It was the police of the entire Obama administration and was ultimately approved by congress in 2016.
Not trying to be rude here, but you have gotten so much just factually incorrect.
Take your time and read up on the issue if you really want to understand what happened.
I've answered all of them, even the hypotheticals which don't line up with the fact pattern.
"There is no" does not mean "There will be no".
There just isn't yet. Could there eventually be? Sure... but nothing that has come to light is evidence of wrongdoing by Biden.
I have supported my position with sources based on the facts as they were occurring in 2015. You were pretty much entirely wrong on this topic and you think I'm not having a serious discussion? Please.
The loan was not congressionally approved.
Biden was not the first Obama administration representative to condition the loan
Biden had not been in Ukraine for months at the time when Shokin was asked to resign.
Just going to pretend you didn't get all of that wrong?
Biden was part of communicating the policy position of the administration. That's it.
That is never going to be illegal as much as you want it to be.
You keep saying there's no evidence, it's just not true. It doesn't matter how often you say it. Hunter saying that he was paying half his income which he was receiving from foreign governments to his father is evidence. The testimony by Archer is evidence. Biden's statement is evidence.
Why would you continually say "there is no evidence" in the face of that. You can say that you don't find the evidence credible. You can say that you don't find the evidence persuasive. But to say that there is no evidence is just not accurate. At this point I have to believe it's deliberately disingenuous.
It’s not though. That was related to a 2017 deal which fell though. Optically bad or not, that is not evidence of wrongdoing by Biden because it would not have been illegal at the time. Also, that deal fell through.
Point to the part where he alleges a crime was committed by Joe.
The vice president communicating US policy is not evidence of illegal activity. How do you not see that?
If the ambassador to Ukraine says it, no crime. Biden says if and it becomes a crime all of a sudden?
Last edited:
Hunter Biden didn't say that he "would have to pay his father half his money" he said he "did have to pay his father half his money." Nothing about that language was perspective.
The sole thing that Biden Inc. had to sell was access to the vice president. Hunter Biden had no experience in the industry, had a terrible work record, and has a well documented drug addiction. No one was paying him millions of dollars for his consultation.
Bidens statement was that he was threatening to hold back $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor who is investigating a well-known corrupt company who is paying tens of millions of dollars to the Biden family. I get that you think that the vice president of the United States shaking down a foreign power like a cheap thug doesn't seem criminal, but that opinion isn't shared by the vast majority of Americans.
I'll see again, you may believe that a different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, but that doesn't make it not evidence. And giving your background, you know that. That's why when you say there is "no evidence", you're being deliberately disingenuous.
Last edited:
To be clear here though, that text is not evidence of wrongdoing by Joe. It gives a reason to look more for sure, like… is it actually true? Did he pay Joe half his salary? Or was that just made up bickering nonsense from a crack addict? Or somewhere in the middle?
100%. I agree Burisma was trying to buy access.
No evidence Joe did anything improper though.
That’s just not what happened though. It was the policy of the entire administration, not Joe Biden. It was communicated through the commerce secretary and state department before Biden said anything.
If Biden never said a word, the same result still happens because it was policy working with the EU and IMF at the time. No one was going to give them money unless they got rid of Shokin. It would have cost them 40 billion and you think it was the 1 from the US that did it? That’s obviously ridiculous.
And again, you’re ignoring that Archer testified Shokin getting fired was bad for Burisma. Your theory here just doesn’t make any sense in that context.
Sure it is. It's just not proof. There's a difference right? So the question is why was the crack addict, to use your words getting tens of millions of dollars from foreign powers and companies. The answer, as you acknowledge below is that they thought they were buying access. They paid Hunter for that access and Hunter by his own statement indicated that he was paying his father. Your answer, well he's a crack addict, and may be a reason to question the validity of Hunter statement, but doesn't make it not evidence.
Well, companies were trying to buy access to him and they were paying "the crack addict" for something, which it's certainly reasonable to assume was access in the crack addict claims he paid his father half of what they paid him. Is that dispositive proof no, but it is definitely evidence.
And you're ignoring the statements by the Burisma executive essentially saying that the reason why they hired Hunter that the axis he granted solve their problems and specifically that Shokin wasn't going to be an issue for them.
As long as we're expanding this to talk about Archers testimony he talks about Joe Biden being the brand and Biden specifically talking to business contacts. All of that, is evidence.
Evidence would be the payments to Joe. Hunter had years of his records reviewed including his personal laptop and the only thing that pointed to Joe was a text to his daughter. Hunter was also living in Joe’s house at the time he wrote that. Maybe he was pissed he was getting charged rent at the time.
I’m not making excuses, should all of this be investigated? Yes, but when someone has his personal laptop, and there is no actual smoking gun pointing to Joe receiving payments, then I start to doubt that actually exists.
And on this point, the thing that would have been illegal for Joe would have been to direct US policy in favor of his son’s associates. Is there evidence that occurred?
Burisma wanted the name Biden on their board. there is no law against Hunter taking a seat on their board (there should be in my opinion). Evidence of a crime by Joe would be if he was directing US policy to help Burisma. As much as you want to connect Shokin to that, it’s just not accurate. There was an international comparing to remove Shokin. The Obama administration conditioned the loan on removing Shokin. Had Biden done that on his own, your argument would make sense. It just doesn’t though when you look into Shokin and the international campaign to remove him.
You’re referring to the 1023 that was cooked up by Giuliani, and is not the words of Zlochevsky, but someone else telling the story of a discussion with Zlochevsky. And Zlochevsky has publicly refuted some of the main points. That’s why the FBI normally does not release raw, unverified reports. Because they could be nonsense… and it certainly reads like it’s nonsense.
“Biden” is a brand name which provides the company with legitimacy. They get to sell the idea that they have a “Biden” on their board.
That is not illegal. Hunter can sell that idea all he wants and anyone can buy it if they choose to.
That is not “evidence” of wrong doing by Joe.
Lol, there's a phrase that you are probably familiar with. "There's a difference between a reason to doubt and reasonable doubt." I'd like to suggest a corollary. "There's a difference between "evidence" and "incontrovertible proof." It seems like you've adopted the latter as your standard for "evidence". Given your background, you know better than that. That's why I return to my statement that you're really not discussing this in good faith. Otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult for you to say the phrase "sure there is evidence of President Biden's wrong doing, quite a bit of it, actually, but I think it can all be explained." The fact that you won't say that and instead claimed that there is "no evidence" is disingenuous, given your background, deliberately so.
It's been an interesting conversation feel free to have the last word.
I just disagree with your premise on what the crime or wrong doing would be.
I don't agree that Shokin being fired can possibly be linked to wrongdoing by Joe given the context at the time where it was the policy position of our government, in cooperation with the EU and IMF for Ukraine to fire him.
I don't agree that Hunter selling the "brand" is illegal for Joe and I don't agree that Burisma's willingness to overpay for a "brand" name means that anything nefarious was happening with Joe.
For there to be a crime, Joe needs to do something illegal on his end.
The Regime Gatekeepers (media) can only suppress the truth for so long
nypost.com
Media hides it but Bidens are in big trouble as Americans get wise to ‘nothingburger’
“President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial,” lawyer Chris Clark wrote in a 32-page letter obtained by Politico.
nypost.com
As "The dude" would say " new sh!!s come to light, man"
Newly found emails (including from Obama State Dept) point to the State dept praising Shokin for his work rooting out corruption. The narrative that says "everyone" knew Shokin himself was corrupt is breaking apart. Seems that it is very likely that Joe overstepped his bounds and son of a gun, did a real "quid pro quo". There is plenty of evidence pointing to a corrupt Joe Biden. Will this ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? NO and Joe will skate.... sadly. Someone from the family needs to be held accountable for all the money laundering that has been going on. Joe is no doubt shielded. RICO charges, anyone???
Before you respond Merge, I would remind you of your stance regarding the Hunter Biden investigation (i.e., he was not given preferential treatment and he would not be given a sweetheart deal) and how wrong you were on that. Similarly your stance on Shokin and Joe's crimes or lack of proof of said crimes, is taking a hit.
You didn’t read the emails.
You listened to a talking point and believed it.
The emails did not praise Shokin at all, and actually they only recommended the loan if Ukraine would add an independent inspector general.
After that email, there were protests in Ukraine against Shokin, and the state department was criticizing Shokin.
Protesters drive to Poroshenko's mansion to demand dismissal of Shokin - Oct. 31, 2015
About 200 members of the AutoMaidan car protest group on Oct. 31 went to the president’s private mansion… - Oct. 31, 2015. By Johannes Wamberg Andersen
You have no idea what you’re talking about on this subject, or any subject here for that matter if we’re being honest.
That moment when you realize that citing the Kiev Post is the best you've got.You didn’t read the emails.
You listened to a talking point and believed it.
The emails did not praise Shokin at all, and actually they only recommended the loan if Ukraine would add an independent inspector general.
After that email, there were protests in Ukraine against Shokin, and the state department was criticizing Shokin.
Protesters drive to Poroshenko's mansion to demand dismissal of Shokin - Oct. 31, 2015
About 200 members of the AutoMaidan car protest group on Oct. 31 went to the president’s private mansion… - Oct. 31, 2015. By Johannes Wamberg Andersen
You have no idea what you’re talking about on this subject, or any subject here for that matter if we’re being honest.
That moment when you realize that citing the Kiev Post is the best you've got.
Are you refuting the fact that people in Ukraine were protesting against Shokin before Biden’s December visit?
Are you refuting the fact that the state department was criticizing Shokin before that visit?
I understand the desire to want to go to a meme instead of discussing the facts that occurred since they don’t line up with your narrative though.
Nope, it's just not relevant to the narrative.
Same thing here. When you are reduced to saying, sure the vice president of the United States threatening to withhold loan guarantees until a foreign country agrees to fire a prosecutor that was investigating a company that was funneling tens of millions of dollars to his son is appropriate and normal, you don't have an argument. That seems readily apparent to everyone but you.
It's all good though. Frankly, as more and more information comes out about the Biden family influence peddling machine it becomes increasingly entertaining to watch you move the goalposts.
- There is no evidence that Hunter did anything wrong.
- OK, there's a ton of evidence that Hunter did quite a bit wrong but there's no evidence that Joe ever talk to Hunter about his business.
- OK Joe had frequent phone calls with hunters business partners and would periodically email them, but there's no evidence that he ever profited from that.
- Oh, well sure Hunter says he profited from it, and in any event, it wouldn't matter if he was just funneling money to family members, but you haven't found the money yet!
It is the entire narrative.
The people of Ukraine protesting Shokin because he was corrupt in 2015 has nothing to do with Hunter Biden.
That is a significant point that blows up the narrative that we only went after Shokin because he was investigating Burisma (which he wasn’t).
Had the people of Ukraine not been trying to get rid of Shokin, had the IMF and EU not been trying to get rid of Shokin, had Shokin’s deputy not resigned because of Shokin’s unwillingness to go after corruption etc… I‘d be more willing to see a view tying his firing to Hunter as a reasonable one. Given the full details of the events that led to his firing, it’s really just not a reasonable position to have.
Again, it wasn’t Joe’s call no matter how much you want to ignore that fact. Joe communicated the position of the Obama administration which had also been communicated previously by the state department and worked out in coordination with the IMF. Also, Shokin was not going after Burisma. Archer testified that Burisma believed Shokin was good for them. There are just so many facts here you’re ignoring.
None of those were ever my goal posts. Said the same things 4 years ago on this board that I’m saying now.
Hunter is a scum bag. He should not have taken that job. It was dumb for Joe to let him. I’m sure he was “selling” the idea that he had access to the VP, but I’m not convinced Joe did anything illegal on his end.
There is no evidence of him directing US policy away from what the US policy was at the time. If there were members of congress who said he was pushing them to support or oppose a bill, that could be something that would make me change my view.
New goal post and another irrelevant one. As you know, extortion doesn't require that the person committing it be able to make good on the threats. It only requires that the threats be made.
That’s been my goal post for the last 4 years on this board because it’s the only one that matters.
Said this in 2019.
almost 4 years later, I still agree with that.
Take a deep breath .... I think you are annoyed because you were called out for being so wrong about the Hunter Biden "investigation"...... ie, no preferential treatment.... no sweetheart deal.... and now with the quid pro quo question .... you HAVE been consistent... I'll give you that.... consistently wrong. I know...... you have your narrative and your sticking with it.
Last edited:
How do you think that mob bosses protected themselves from prying eyes???..... shell companies and money laundering. Mike Franzese, reformed mob capo explains as such and explains how he was brought up on RICO charges (and pled guilty to at least one of the charges) regarding shell companies and fraudulently hiding money. Are Joe's fingerprints on the shell companies. NO. Did he benefit from all those millions paid to these shell companies? pretty fair question.... don't you think? For the life of me I can't understand how the mainstream media simply turns a blind eye to this.
Sadly, I'm not betting on Joe ever being found guilty of anything. You would simply say.... it''s not his brand.... lol.
Take a listen to this interview. between Glenn Beck and Michael Franzese. Food for thought. I'm trying to like ... help you, man...
wouldn’t say I’m annoyed, though it would be nice if those passionate about this topic would get some of the facts correct. Wouldn’t take long to actually look up what was happening with Shokin in 2015, and yet some here would rather blindly argue instead.
Biden’s deal fell apart because it wasn’t as big of a sweetheart deal as his team wanted it to be which would shield him from future charges on other crimes. The federal prosecutors said no to that. That’s what blew up the deal.
And as I’ve said all along, I could be wrong. I don’t care about winning an argument. I’m stating my opinion based on the facts as we know them. My opinion would change if new facts come to light which suggest Joe actually did something illegal.
Similar threads
