Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (8 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine.

Baturina is referenced in the 87-page report, which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014.

“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.

The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.

The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.

Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA.

Hunter Biden received $3.5M wire transfer from Russian billionaire: Senate report

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their r…

nypost.com

We all know their is massive corruption on both sides of the aisle. Here is an alleged allegation against Hunter Biden who was allegedly enriching himself because his Dad was Vice President.

 

[Ayo]

I vote 3rd party in Presidential elections. I voted JBE for governor. I vote for the candidate I most align with in local elections, and I do my damnedest to ignore the letter next to their names on the ballot.

I know that hard for some of you to fathom. But it’s true.

You routinely manage to find a way not to give people around here much credit.

 

[not2rich]

I vote 3rd party in Presidential elections. I voted JBE for governor. I vote for the candidate I most align with in local elections, and I do my damnedest to ignore the letter next to their names on the ballot.

I know that hard for some of you to fathom. But it’s true.

I’m in the middle in social issues and I’m more fiscally conservative.

Trump is a worthless meat sack. The DNC as it exists today is no better IMO.

I love the constitution. I hate the war on drugs and all the issues that it directly inflicts on poor communities and people of color

I think everyone should be able to marry who they choose too and no one should be discriminated against for any reason, nor should they be treated preferably for any reason.

I support LEOs but also support the idea that changes in policing need to be made and education and community dialogue is a big part of that.

I am for ranked choice.

I believe the only way forward is together. And our 2 party system is designed to fail us in that regard.

I’m not a fan of abortion or it being a right. But I also believe exceptions are obvious. Like rape, incest, mother’s life in danger etc.

I can go on all day. But I am anything but a single minded ideological partisan.

You love the Constitution yet hate the 2 party system. Think about that.

 

[MT15]

Infoman, and I mean this in the best way possible, you talk a good game, but then you say there’s no difference between Trump and Biden, and you just tumble right off that high horse you always ride in here on. It is what it is.

 

[Infoman]

You routinely manage to find a way not to give people around here much credit.

I try. I really do. It’s hard when I have to constantly defend/qualify that I’m not some scary secret Trump mole every time I’m not singing the praises of the DNC or blaming the Orange Avenger for any and everything wrong with the world.

 

[not2rich]

Infoman, and I mean this in the best way possible, you talk a good game, but then you say there’s no difference between Trump and Biden, and you just tumble right off that high horse you always ride in here on. It is what it is.

Yes, all of us are in some kind of partisan bubble which he has transcended. Yet, his "enlightened" viewpoint is that both sides are equally bad. Trump and Biden - equally bad!

 

[Infoman]

Oh it’s obvious we see Biden and the DNC different.

I will say I do not see him as some moderate harmless career politician.

We will leave it at that.

 

[Infoman]

You love the Constitution yet hate the 2 party system. Think about that.

Ok. One is a living document that can literally be amended and provides me the life / liberty I love. The other is a useless archaic system that brings nothing but division. I have no issue with discerning them. Or using one to kill the other.

 

[V Chip]

We can't keep justifying one side of ridiculousness by saying... sure it's ridiculous.... but what about this extreme ridiculousness over here????

It sure seems selective, though, any outrage over alleged Joe Biden corruption.

It's like making a stink because Biden is accused of driving 67 in a 65, where a hell of a lot of people in the same situation as him are going 85, and a good number into triple digits.

Yeah, you are free to make the stink over the 2mph. Most "independent" people wouldn't bat an eye at that or make a big deal over it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Oh it’s obvious we see Biden and the DNC different.

I will say I do not see him as some moderate harmless career politician.

We will leave it at that.

What do you think are the absolute worst things about Trump and the current RNC? What about Biden and the current DNC?

 

[superchuck500]

This seems like as good a place as any to raise this topic. Trump is using federal programs with federal tax dollars in support of his election in unprecedented ways.

The farther behind Donald Trump has fallen in the competition for campaign dollars, the more he’s milked government resources to make up the difference.

Millions of boxes of food doled out to needy families — with letters signed by the president taking credit stuffed inside. An $8 billion program for drug-discount cards to seniors featuring Trump branding — intended to arrive before the Nov. 3 election. A $300 million advertising blitz to "defeat despair" over the coronavirus pandemic — the biggest threat to Trump’s reelection.

Each of those initiatives have two things in common: They’re paid for with taxpayer money, and they are plainly intended to help Trump’s flagging reelection campaign. The actions are just the latest examples of how the president has eviscerated the traditional boundaries separating politics from government.

 

[not2rich]

Ok. One is a living document that can literally be amended and provides me the life / liberty I love. The other is a useless archaic system that brings nothing but division. I have no issue with discerning them. Or using one to kill the other.

The modern GOP doesn't subscribe to the "living document" concept of the Constitution. Which, by the way, did nothing to prevent the "useless archaic" two party system, which has been a function of our government basically since its founding. I agree that the divisiveness today is unlike anything before, but that's a natural evolution of our system of government combined with modern media/propaganda. Which raises a question: What are the odds of the Constitution being amended in this day and age? The two party system is going to kill the Constitution, if anything. Certainly not vice versa.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I try. I really do. It’s hard when I have to constantly defend/qualify that I’m not some scary secret Trump mole every time I’m not singing the praises of the DNC or blaming the Orange Avenger for any and everything wrong with the world.

This is pure hyperbole. No one has criticized you for "not singing the praises of the DNC" or for not "blaming Trump for any and everything wrong with the world."

You're always having to defend yourself, because you almost always puts other people on the defensive. Most of the time you either refuse or are incapable of just stating your opinion without insulting posters who don't agree with you.

Almost every post you make takes an unnecessary and unwarranted personal dig at another poster or posters for allegedly not being sincere, smart, honest, objective, or someone who thinks for themselves. That is offensive in nature, not defensive. Then when people naturally push back with any animosity, you get all bent out of shape about being attacked by the mindless, group thinking posters on this site.

Lots of people heatedly disagree with other people here without personally disrespecting others. The reason you find yourself "constantly having to defend/qualify" yourself is because you don't ever just disagree with people. You almost always have to let them know how inferior they are to you solely because they disagree with you.

Frankly, if you stopped putting people on the defensive you wouldn't find yourself on the defensive. You're making the bed that you find yourself lying in. If you don't like that bed, then stop making it.

Rather than thumbs up my posts in which I ask you questions or point out why people get frustrated with you, why not engage me in an actual discussion? Why not simply engage others without constantly telling them that you are superior and more enlightened than they are?

 

[DaveXA]

The modern GOP doesn't subscribe to the "living document" concept of the Constitution. Which, by the way, did nothing to prevent the "useless archaic" two party system, which has been a function of our government basically since its founding. I agree that the divisiveness today is unlike anything before, but that's a natural evolution of our system of government combined with modern media/propaganda. Which raises a question: What are the odds of the Constitution being amended in this day and age? The two party system is going to kill the Constitution, if anything. Certainly not vice versa.

I wouldn't say the GOP doesn't see the Constitution as a living document. I grew up around Republicans and we often talked about the ways the Constitution was and remains a living document. It's maybe anecdotal, but I always viewed it that way. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't have the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution over 2 centuries.

That said, I do think most Republicans think we should adhere to the plain meaning the authors intended as a matter of law or change/abolish parts of the law that are no longer relevant or workable. So in that sense, I'd probably be an Originalist and textualist. But it has always been and will always be a living document.

I no longer consider myself a Republican because too many have strayed far from the ideals I supported years ago. It's but a shell of the party it was 20-30 years ago.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I wouldn't say the GOP doesn't see the Constitution as a living document. I grew up around Republicans and we often talked about the ways the Constitution was and remains a living document. It's maybe anecdotal, but I always viewed it that way. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't have the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution over 2 centuries.

That said, I do think most Republicans think we should adhere to the plain meaning the authors intended as a matter of law or change/abolish parts of the law that are no longer relevant or workable. So in that sense, I'd probably be an Originalist and textualist. But it has always been and will always be a living document.

I no longer consider myself a Republican because too many have strayed far from the ideals I supported years ago. It's but a shell of the party it was 20-30 years ago.

To me, being an originalist defeats the idea of seeing the Constitution as a living document, because it says we have to interpret the Constituion based on what "the authors intended" which means we are stuck with their interpretation and can't use our own.

 

[DaveXA]

To me, being an originalist defeats the idea of seeing the Constitution as a living document, because it says we have to interpret the Constituion based on what "the authors intended" which means we are stuck with their interpretation and can't use our own.

I disagree. The law's meaning should remain consistent until it is amended or changed to reflect how our culture and way of life have changed. The reason I say it's a living document is because it's amended periodically to reflect those changes in society. The original intended meaning should be how it's interpreted in the courts and if we as a society can't accept the original meaning, then we change the law, not reinterpret it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I disagree. The law's meaning should remain consistent until it is amended or changed to reflect how our culture and way of life have changed. The reason I say it's a living document is because it's amended periodically to reflect those changes in society. The original intended meaning should be how it's interpreted in the courts and if we as a society can't accept the original meaning, then we change the law, not reinterpret it.

Amendments are not the only things that make it a living document. New interpretations for new circumstances have to be allowed if it's a living document. We shouldn't need a Constitutional amendment to protect the legal right of any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult. That's just one of many examples.

The other problem with original interpretations, intentions and/or meanings is that the people who wrote the Constitution disagreed on all of those on almost every aspect of the Constitution.

We already interject our own interpretations when we choose which creator's interpretations to bind ourselves to and which creator's interpretations to reject? Just as important, there are things in the Constitution that we don't actually have a clear documentation from any of them on what they meant, so all we have to work with are our own interpretations.

 

[Foreign National]

Trump is a worthless meat sack. The DNC as it exists today is no better IMO

I do not mean to pick on you, but I think this quote highlights why people are skeptical of your constant self proclaimed hyper objectivity. It seems as though you only ever criticize Mr Trump when your objectivity is called into question, but you are constantly railing on any perceived wrong from the DNC. You constantly complain how both sides are equally bad but I don’t see you ever complain about the RNC. In the above quote you mention Mr Trump is worthless, and the DNC is no better, but that’s not exactly both sides.

I am not trying to criticize you. I just want to give perspective why some people might not believe you. You claim a certain stance but your behavior doesn’t reflect those claims.

 

[donato]

I do not mean to pick on you, but I think this quote highlights why people are skeptical of your constant self proclaimed hyper objectivity. It seems as though you only ever criticize Mr Trump when your objectivity is called into question, but you are constantly railing on any perceived wrong from the DNC. You constantly complain how both sides are equally bad but I don’t see you ever complain about the RNC. In the above quote you mention Mr Trump is worthless, and the DNC is no better, but that’s not exactly both sides.

I am not trying to criticize you. I just want to give perspective why some people might not believe you. You claim a certain stance but your behavior doesn’t reflect those claims.

This. He's a blind Trump/GOP supporter that wants to feel/act impartial. Always hiding behind one or two DEM or abstained past votes while spouting ridiculous false equivalencies. I think he knows he's wrong, but can't come to grips with it just yet, and probably never will.