Bidunce Crime Family Thread

[Merge]

pretty fair question.... don't you think?

I have no issue with investigating that.
Hunter should not have taken that job, and Joe should not have let him. Politicians should err on the side of caution when it comes to transactions which could even appear to impair objectivity, especially when it comes to foreign companies.

 

[Pirata]

Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 201)

https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/Chap 6 Bribery.pdf

"In addition, a conviction under this section may be based on a stream of benefits to the public official or to a third party whom the official favors, and the government does not need to establish that any specific benefit was given in exchange for a specific official act. Payments in violation of the statute may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an "as needed" basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf."

 

[Merge]

Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 201)

https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/Chap 6 Bribery.pdf

"In addition, a conviction under this section may be based on a stream of benefits to the public official or to a third party whom the official favors, and the government does not need to establish that any specific benefit was given in exchange for a specific official act. Payments in violation of the statute may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an "as needed" basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf."

Exactly! that’s the issue for me.
Tie it to a “specific action” that Joe Biden took on Burisma’s behalf and I’ll see that argument.

I don’t believe Shokin’s firing fits that criteria given the entire context of what was happening with Shokin in 2015. The fact that Archer testified that Shokin being fired was bad for Burisma only strengthened my view there.

What was the official act that Joe took? Are there members of congress saying that Joe was lobbying them to pass or block a bill that would have helped Burisma?

Is there actually an allegation of a specific act that he took to help them?

 

[Pirata]

I think you missed the part that said specific action is not needed.

I am not saying that he is guilty or that it can be proven, but there is certainly enough evidence worthy of further investigation.

The most obvious thing money. There really isn't anything to support a rational reason why money flowed to Hunter and other Biden family members.

The talking about the weather line sounds like something out of a Hollywood Mafia movie.

 

[Merge]

I think you missed the part that said specific action is not needed.

That’s not what that paragraph says.
It says a specific payment for a specific action is not needed to prove wrongdoing. So paying Hunter for Joe to do XYZ would be an example of that.

But it still requires a specific action by Joe, for the payments to Hunter to meet the criteria.

I am not saying that he is guilty or that it can be proven, but there is certainly enough evidence worthy of further investigation.

I agree. Warrants further scrutiny for sure, and that’s Joe’s own fault for letting his son take that job.
My view is that for there to be a crime by Joe, there would need to be evidence that Joe did something as VP to benefit Burisma.

The most obvious thing money. There really isn't anything to support a rational reason why money flowed to Hunter and other Biden family members.

I agree. They were investing in the name. That in itself is not illegal. Showing that he has his father on speed dial is not illegal. What would be illegal is if Joe did something as VP to benefit Burisma. Show me the smoke there and I’ll change my view.

 

[ed odowd]

Wonder how many other sons put their father on the phone with their business associates or invite their father to dinner with their business associates.Wonder How many on this board have done that.

 

[Merge]

Wonder how many other sons put their father on the phone with their business associates or invite their father to dinner with their business associates.Wonder How many on this board have done that.

If the father is famous and the only way the son will make money is by taking advantage of the family name? Every single one of them is the answer.

 

[PiratePride]

If the father is famous and the only way the son will make money is by taking advantage of the family name? Every single one of them is the answer.

ONLY if the father can deliver on some tangible benefit.....wink wink "quid pro quo"...... AND they have a bucket full of shell companies to do some laundry.......follow the money......

 

[CL82]

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.

Is being able to make good on a threat a required element of extortion? Yes or no?

 

[Pirata]

That’s not what that paragraph says.
It says a specific payment for a specific action is not needed to prove wrongdoing. So paying Hunter for Joe to do XYZ would be an example of that.

But it still requires a specific action by Joe, for the payments to Hunter to meet the criteria.



I agree. Warrants further scrutiny for sure, and that’s Joe’s own fault for letting his son take that job.
My view is that for there to be a crime by Joe, there would need to be evidence that Joe did something as VP to benefit Burisma.



I agree. They were investing in the name. That in itself is not illegal. Showing that he has his father on speed dial is not illegal. What would be illegal is if Joe did something as VP to benefit Burisma. Show me the smoke there and I’ll change my view.

I think you missed the second underline. No worries.

 

[ed odowd]

Merge it looks like you need the smoking gun to believe Joe Biden did anything wrong relating to Hunter’s business.You would be a tough juror to accept and convict on a large amount of circumstantial evidence.Do you even think the VP withholding 1 Billion if prosecutor who is charging the firm Hunter is on board of is not a clear conflict of interest.

 

[Merge]

I think you missed the second underline. No worries.

I did not. You’re misinterpreting what it means.
The last part of the paragraph explains what would be a violation without the direct “specific payment” for a “specific benefit”.

There still has to be a specific action by Joe for their to be a violation, otherwise relatives of politicians would be unemployable anywhere because anyone could imply anyone hired was for a potential later benefit.

“Payments in violation of the statute may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an "as needed" basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf."

 

[Merge]

Merge it looks like you need the smoking gun to believe Joe Biden did anything wrong relating to Hunter’s business.You would be a tough juror to accept and convict on a large amount of circumstantial evidence.Do you even think the VP withholding 1 Billion if prosecutor who is charging the firm Hunter is on board of is not a clear conflict of interest.

A tough juror? Thank you for the compliment.
Wouldn’t have thought wanting to understand the law and the relevant facts would be that crazy though.

And again, the VP did not withhold funds.
This was worked out over months between the Obama administration, the IMF and EU. Yes, Biden made up a story where he took credit for it, but if you try to understand the facts as they occurred you’d realize that it was just another one of Biden’s many made up stories.

Also, Shokin was not going after Burisma and Archer testified that Busisma believed they had Shokin under control. If Biden campaigned to keep Shokin opposing US policy, and opposing what we worked out with the IMF and EU because it would benefit Burisma, this theory would make sense. Given the facts though, it just doesn’t hold up which is probably why Barr didn’t aggressively go after it in 2019.

 

[Pirata]

I did not. You’re misinterpreting what it means.
The last part of the paragraph explains what would be a violation without the direct “specific payment” for a “specific benefit”.

There still has to be a specific action by Joe for their to be a violation, otherwise relatives of politicians would be unemployable anywhere because anyone could imply anyone hired was for a potential later benefit.

“Payments in violation of the statute may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an "as needed" basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf."

I would submit that you're misinterping the wording.

I read it that you don't have to have specific action, only the potential for the specific action.

I'm okay to agree to disagree.

I agree with you that the specific action has not taken place or at least has not been proven and hence it may not move forward on that.

The part about retaining the official for the potential future use if needed is the part that I am clinging to.

Regardless, I believe that the amount of money that has been paid is enough for me to say that something is rotten in Denmark.

Nothing like a little Hamlet now and then. 😀

 

[Merge]

I would submit that you're misinterping the wording.

I’m not.
See SCOTUS.

McDonnell v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so.

The part about retaining the official for the potential future use if needed is the part that I am clinging to.

That would be attempted bribery by Bursima, but without an official act by Joe, it just doesn’t implicate him in doing anything wrong.

Regardless, I believe that the amount of money that has been paid is enough for me to say that something is rotten in Denmark.

Possibly, but then again, maybe having the VPs son on their board provided them with the perception of legitimacy that they needed and nothing rotten was necessary.

 

[CL82]

That would be attempted bribery by Bursima, but without an official act by Joe, it just doesn’t implicate him in doing anything wrong.

Would the vice president of the United States threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees for a foreign government during an official meeting constitute an official act? Hasn't that been your argument all the way along?

 

[Merge]

Would the vice president of the United States threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees for a foreign government during an official meeting constitute an official act? Hasn't that been your argument all the way along?

Read the link from scotusblog. Clearly states the official must make a decision to take an action.
Biden communicating policy which was established by the entire Obama administration which was previously communicated by the state department which had been worked out with the IMF and EU doesn’t really seem to be Biden’s decision.

and again, you’re ignoring that Archer testified Shokin being fired was not good for Burisma.

 

[CL82]

Read the link from scotusblog. Clearly states the official must make a decision to take an action.
Biden communicating policy which was established by the entire Obama administration which was previously communicated by the state department which had been worked out with the IMF and EU doesn’t really seem to be Biden’s decision.

and again, you’re ignoring that Archer testified Shokin being fired was not good for Burisma.

LOL, the action was shaking down a foreign government in his capacity as vice president. That's an affirmative act. You do understand that right?

 

[Merge]

LOL, the action was shaking down a foreign government in his capacity as vice president. That's an affirmative act. You do understand that right?

Even if it was Biden’s policy decision (which it wasn’t) it would have to be gold for Burisma for Shokin to be removed (which it wasn’t)

 

[ed odowd]

Merge I haven’t read archer transcript but have read newspaper reports that archer said Shokin was not good fir Burisma does transcript contradict this or do you have other source.

 

[PiratePride]

Merge I haven’t read archer transcript but have read newspaper reports that archer said Shokin was not good fir Burisma does transcript contradict this or do you have other source.

Archer told Tucker Carlson that Burisma thought SLotkin was a threat to them. See article below. His testimony to Congress was more veiled about Burisma from what I could gather. Seems to be some contradiction. Don't know his exact words and context from his testimony to Congress.

Ukraine prosecutor whose ouster Biden pushed was ‘threat,’ says Devon Archer

Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who was fired months after then-Vice President Joe Biden threatened to pull $1 billion in US aid, was “a threat” to natural gas company Buris…

nypost.com

 

[Merge]

Merge I haven’t read archer transcript but have read newspaper reports that archer said Shokin was not good fir Burisma does transcript contradict this or do you have other source.

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."

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf

 

[PiratePride]

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."

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf

Archer's answer is not so clear here. You can parse it a number of ways. Who is the DC team? What does under control mean? He was clearer in his statements to Carlson. Certainly a contradiction between the two statements he made. To be clear, though, it wasn't Archer who felt Shokin firing would be bad for Burisma. He was relaying what someone on the DC team said.

 

[Merge]

Archer's answer is not so clear here. You can parse it a number of ways. Who is the DC team? What does under control mean? He was clearer in his statements to Carlson. Certainly a contradiction between the two statements he made. To be clear, though, it wasn't Archer who felt Slotkin's firing would be bad for Burisma. He was relaying what someone on the DC team said.

He actually said the same thing on Tucker.
The narrative he was told was that firing Shokin was bad and that they (Burisma) don’t want a new prosecutor.

 

[CL82]

Even if it was Biden’s policy decision (which it wasn’t) it would have to be gold for Burisma for Shokin to be removed (which it wasn’t)

Wait see this is what I'm talking about on moving the goalposts. Now you've added another condition that not only must there be an official action but it must be a negative outcome for a third-party.

Is there anything else you want to add in there? You know, just in case?

 

[Merge]

Wait see this is what I'm talking about on moving the goalposts. Now you've added another condition that not only must there be an official action but it must be a negative outcome for a third-party.

Is there anything else you want to add in there? You know, just in case?

You’re not following the conversation. Pirata specifically brought up a bribery statute, and yes, Joe would 100% have had to have done something that benefits Burisma to be implicated in a crime based on that law… that’s what the law says and that’s how SCOTUS interpreted it.

 

[Pirata]

That's not how I interpret the statute.

At the moment I'm sitting in my garage finishing the morning cigar after a round of golf in which I got my money back by winning the back nine and got screwed out of a skin on seven. I had a natural birdie and a high handicapper had a three for two. Son of a. B****.

When I get a chance to sit in front of the computer and reply to this I will write a little bit more. But for now I think we just have a gentleman's agreement on the interpretation of the statute. I think there's enough to say that he has violated the statute but I doubt that the DOJ will investigate it. And as I said before the best I think it is cause for more investigation.

 

[Merge]

That's not how I interpret the statute.

That’s fine, but at that point you’re arguing with Supreme Court.

Read the opinion on McDonnell vs the United States. It was a unanimous decision in 2016.

 

[Pirata]

I did not. You’re misinterpreting what it means.
The last part of the paragraph explains what would be a violation without the direct “specific payment” for a “specific benefit”.

There still has to be a specific action by Joe for their to be a violation, otherwise relatives of politicians would be unemployable anywhere because anyone could imply anyone hired was for a potential later benefit.

“Payments in violation of the statute may be made with the intent to retain the official's services on an "as needed" basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf."

It say "will take" not "took"

 

[Pirata]

That’s fine, but at that point you’re arguing with Supreme Court.

Read the opinion on McDonnell vs the United States. It was a unanimous decision in 2016.

I read it.

Yes, based on that opinion I agree they will need to find a nexus to an official act.

While immaterial to the technicality of the decision, the circumstances of the two situation are vastly different.

1. Governor promoting jobs with a domestic company in his state receiving golf trips and trips on jet.

vs.

2. VPOTUS dealing with foreign nationals, Russia, China and receiving $40M (so far).

 

[Merge]

I read it.

Yes, based on that opinion I agree they will need to find a nexus to an official act.

While immaterial to the technicality of the decision, the circumstances of the two situation are vastly different.

1. Governor promoting jobs with a domestic company in his state receiving golf trips and trips on jet.

vs.

2. VPOTUS dealing with foreign nationals, Russia, China and receiving $40M (so far).

Not identical, though they were very much opposed to such a broad view that was suggested here.

The Governor was openly advocating for that company to other politicians and that was not deemed to be an official act. In this same scenario, I’d argue it’s more of a FARA violation over bribery with Biden, though no one has alleged that has occurred.

The money to Hunter without an official act by Joe just isn’t going to meet the bribery statute, especially related to any payments after he was out of office.

 

[PiratePride]

He actually said the same thing on Tucker.
The narrative he was told was that firing Shokin was bad and that they (Burisma) don’t want a new prosecutor.

He didn’t say the same thing to Tucker. He specifically said that Burisma thought Shokin was a threat to him.

 

[CL82]

You’re not following the conversation. Pirata specifically brought up a bribery statute, and yes, Joe would 100% have had to have done something that benefits Burisma to be implicated in a crime based on that law… that’s what the law says and that’s how SCOTUS interpreted it.

So, help me out where in the statute does it say that the extortioner has to produce a third-party benefit. Maybe it's in there and I missed it.

Regardless, by any reasonable interpretation firing a guy who was investigating a company that was paying the Biden family millions of dollars would certainly seem to be a benefit to that company.

 

[Merge]

He didn’t say the same thing to Tucker.

He did if you watched the interview. Tucker obviously quickly pivoted away from that line of questioning quickly.

On the firing of Shokin…
“We were told that was bad and we don’t want a new prosecutor and Shokin was taken care of”

 

[Merge]

So, help me out where in the statute does it say that the extortioner has to produce a third-party benefit. Maybe it's in there and I missed it.

Again… I wasn’t talking about extortion. I was talking to Pirata about bribery.

Don’t mind addressing all of these hypotheticals, but at least follow the conversation.

Regardless, by any reasonable interpretation firing a guy who was investigating a company that was paying the Biden family millions of dollars would certainly seem to be a benefit to that company.

Except for the fact that he wasn’t investigating that company.
Except for the fact that the calls to fire the corrupt prosecutor did not originate with the US, but the EU.
Except for the fact that the people of Ukraine were protesting Shokin because he was not going after corruption.
Except for the fact that this was not Biden forcing Ukraine to fire him but the policy of the Obama administration which was worked out with the state department and IMF.

Occam’s razor. He was pushed out because he was himself, corrupt.

 

[CL82]

Again… I wasn’t talking about extortion. I was talking to Pirata about bribery.

Don’t mind addressing all of these hypotheticals, but at least follow the conversation.



Except for the fact that he wasn’t investigating that company.
Except for the fact that the calls to fire the corrupt prosecutor did not originate with the US, but the EU.
Except for the fact that the people of Ukraine were protesting Shokin because he was not going after corruption.
Except for the fact that this was not Biden forcing Ukraine to fire him but the policy of the Obama administration which was worked out with the state department and IMF.

Occam’s razor. He was pushed out because he was himself, corrupt.

Except the fact that people were protesting the prosecutor material? Where is it reflected in the statute?

 

[Merge]

Except the fact that people were protesting the prosecutor material? Where is it reflected in the statute?

it depends. Cite the law you think Biden would be charged with.

Given the EU, IMF and citizens of Ukraine who were protesting against Shokin all wanted him out and do not care at all about Hunter Biden, you’re just not considering the possibility that the US did not want to keep sending money to a corrupt government and the request to remove Shokin was a reasonable one.

 

[CL82]

it depends. Cite the law you think Biden would be charged with.

Given the EU, IMF and citizens of Ukraine who were protesting against Shokin all wanted him out and do not care at all about Hunter Biden, you’re just not considering the possibility that the US did not want to keep sending money to a corrupt government and the request to remove Shokin was a reasonable one.

Whether or not people were protesting is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Merge]

Whether or not people were protesting is absolutely irrelevant.

It’s really not if you’re trying to understand the actual environment and if Shokin was actually corrupt or not.

You be need to look at the entire picture, the the people in Ukraine protesting against the guy gives credence to the position of the United States at the time.

If Shokin was actually corrupt, as alleged by the EU, IMF, the people of Ukraine, his own deputy who resigned because of roadblocks by Shokin etc etc etc…. Then maybe our position was the correct one?

You’re not even considering that as a possibility which is a little silly considering of all of the parties involved and the fact that they had no connection to Joe or Hunter Biden.

And that’s all on the assumption that Shokin was bad for Burisma and as Archer testified, the board of Burisma did not believe that was the case.

None of your argument makes sense in full context.

 

[CL82]

It’s really not if you’re trying to understand the actual environment and if Shokin was actually corrupt or not.

You be need to look at the entire picture, the the people in Ukraine protesting against the guy gives credence to the position of the United States at the time.

If Shokin was actually corrupt, as alleged by the EU, IMF, the people of Ukraine, his own deputy who resigned because of roadblocks by Shokin etc etc etc…. Then maybe our position was the correct one?

You’re not even considering that as a possibility which is a little silly considering of all of the parties involved and the fact that they had no connection to Joe or Hunter Biden.

And that’s all on the assumption that Shokin was bad for Burisma and as Archer testified, the board of Burisma did not believe that was the case.

None of your argument makes sense in full context.

Or alternatively, you continue to construct scenarios which fly in the face of the vice presidents quote, which you choose to discount because it is so damning.