Hunter Biden (1 Viewer)

[FullMonte]

Lost in all the news coverage about what's going on in the US right now is this bit of information.

The Ukrainian government has completed an audit of thousands of case files related to Burisma. Ruslan Ryaboshapka (the prosecutor general), described by Zelenskiy as "100 percent my person" in the July phone call with president Trump said "I specifically asked prosecutors to check especially carefully those facts about Biden's alleged involvement. They answered that there was nothing of the kind."

Not that anyone SHOULD be surprised to find out that Hunter Biden was not implicated in something that was done by the CEO of Burisma in his role as a government employee, that happened two years before Biden joined the board.

Ukrainian prosecutors find no evidence against Hunter Biden

Audit probed energy company Burisma, of which Biden was a board member from 2014-2019

www.theguardian.com

 

[rajncajn]

That’s it. Another report totaled it at 272.

Trump’s Russia Cover-Up By the Numbers – 251 contacts with Russia-linked operatives

A new brief from the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Moscow Project shows that, based on public reporting and indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller, there are at least 272 known contacts between Trump’s team and Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition...

web.archive.org

The bad thing about these is that very few are actually meaningful. 140, 270 sounds really bad, but when it includes things like Trump saying he had nothing to do with Russia and invites AND the decline to attend (counts as 2) official Russian events, it's really more misleading than anything else. Those arent "links to Russia." I'm willing to bet if you reviewed Obamas or Hillarys or Sanders or Cruz or Kasichs campaigns, you would find similar numbers if you delved as deeply as these articles have.

 

[MT15]

The bad thing about these is that very few are actually meaningful. 140, 270 sounds really bad, but when it includes things like Trump saying he had nothing to do with Russia and invites AND the decline to attend (counts as 2) official Russian events, it's really more misleading than anything else. Those arent "links to Russia." I'm willing to bet if you reviewed Obamas or Hillarys or Sanders or Cruz or Kasichs campaigns, you would find similar numbers if you delved as deeply as these articles have.

I agree the actual number is meaningless. What isn’t is the tenor of the important ones. There wasn’t anything normal about the meeting at Trump Tower, which should have been reported to the FBI, but instead they eagerly took it and were disappointed when it didn’t turn out to be what they were told. There wasn’t anything normal about Stone telling the campaign he could coordinate the release of damaging material with WikiLeaks, and them being fine about it. Nothing normal about Manafort’s actions either. And I think we don’t know everything yet. So there was (and is) plenty of “there” there.

 

[Incumbent]

I replied with two specific replies to your posts and your vague response doesn't address any of my points.

Were you aware about the referral that the Intelligence Official sent to Comey and Strzok about Clinton planning to link Trump to the Russia election interference?

I logged off and spent time with my wife.

And, no, I don’t owe you an explanation about anything when you refuse to accept basic findings and facts. Nitpicking this stuff from the edges is tedious and intentional to avoid reality.

 

[rajncajn]

I agree the actual number is meaningless. What isn’t is the tenor of the important ones. There wasn’t anything normal about the meeting at Trump Tower, which should have been reported to the FBI, but instead they eagerly took it and were disappointed when it didn’t turn out to be what they were told. There wasn’t anything normal about Stone telling the campaign he could coordinate the release of damaging material with WikiLeaks, and them being fine about it. Nothing normal about Manafort’s actions either. And I think we don’t know everything yet. So there was (and is) plenty of “there” there.

Exactly. It distracts from the parts that actually matter and really just fuels the fervor from both ends of the extreme. It reminds me of the articles counting the number of "lies" from Trump/Biden. Most of it is just nonsense and noise and what I find to be the worst part of that is it's intentionally misleading.

 

[FullMonte]

Are you aware that Brennan briefed Obama about Hillary's plan to tie Trump to the Russia election interference?

I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again.


So what?

Ok, let’s assume for discussion that Hillaryn completely made up everything and Brennan briefed Obama that she was going to completely fabricate a story that trump was in bed with Putin.

What is the sitting president supposed to do when he is told that a candidate is going to lie about another candidate?

 

[bird]

I replied with two specific replies to your posts and your vague response doesn't address any of my points.

Were you aware about the referral that the Intelligence Official sent to Comey and Strzok about Clinton planning to link Trump to the Russia election interference?

And?

 

[rajncajn]

I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again.

So what?

Ok, let’s assume for discussion that Hillaryn completely made up everything and Brennan briefed Obama that she was going to completely fabricate a story that trump was in bed with Putin.

What is the sitting president supposed to do when he is told that a candidate is going to lie about another candidate?

And?

Give him a reason why it's allowed, however morally wrong it may be. Although it's obviously slanted against Trump, there's a decent article written in The Atlantic about why election lies are allowed per the Supreme Court. It deals with first amendment rights and the possible suppression of actual truths because people are afraid of speaking them. All politicians say things that aren't always evidence-based. It's our responsibility to look at those things with a critical eye, especially when it's our own party or candidates because you don't want to be led down a path of falsehoods.

Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies?

Donald Trump says the press cannot lie. But the Supreme Court says otherwise.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[bdb13]

I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again.

So what?

Ok, let’s assume for discussion that Hillaryn completely made up everything and Brennan briefed Obama that she was going to completely fabricate a story that trump was in bed with Putin.

What is the sitting president supposed to do when he is told that a candidate is going to lie about another candidate?


Give him a reason why it's allowed, however morally wrong it may be. Although it's obviously slanted against Trump, there's a decent article written in The Atlantic about why election lies are allowed per the Supreme Court. It deals with first amendment rights and the possible suppression of actual truths because people are afraid of speaking them. All politicians say things that aren't always evidence-based. It's our responsibility to look at those things with a critical eye, especially when it's our own party or candidates because you don't want to be led down a path of falsehoods.

Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies?

Donald Trump says the press cannot lie. But the Supreme Court says otherwise.

www.theatlantic.com

If the information had been (this was Russian sourced intel I believe that Brennan apparently presented to Obama): "US intelligence indicates candidate Clinton has OK'd a plan to feed false information regarding Trump and Russia to the FBI" then I think it would be something all together different. But the Russian Intel did not appear to be that specific from what I've seen.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I, for one, cannot wait or the trial of Hunter Biden on his tax violations. Also, I eagerly await the special counsel appointment letter and the results of the investigation that follows.

 

[rajncajn]

If the information had been (this was Russian sourced intel I believe that Brennan apparently presented to Obama): "US intelligence indicates candidate Clinton has OK'd a plan to feed false information regarding Trump and Russia to the FBI" then I think it would be something all together different. But the Russian Intel did not appear to be that specific from what I've seen.

Not only that, but the FBI already knew the information was unverified, so it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

 

[SaintForLife]

I logged off and spent time with my wife.

And, no, I don’t owe you an explanation about anything when you refuse to accept basic findings and facts. Nitpicking this stuff from the edges is tedious and intentional to avoid reality.

Basic findings and facts according to the people who pushed the Russiagate BS?

It's all been discredited. The only things that Russiagaters hang on to are the polling data Manafort handed over for financial reasons, the Trump Tower meeting that had Fusion GPS fingerprints.

You don't have to respond to my specific posts, but it seems like you have nothing to refute what I posted so you hide behind vague pronouncements which others do here as well.

 

[bird]

Basic findings and facts according to the people who pushed the Russiagate BS?

It's all been discredited. The only things that Russiagaters hang on to are the polling data Manafort handed over for financial reasons, the Trump Tower meeting that had Fusion GPS fingerprints.

You don't have to respond to my specific posts, but it seems like you have nothing to refute what I posted so you hide behind vague pronouncements which others do here as well.

No.

 

[SaintForLife]

Wow. Raskin throwing Hunter under the bus. Is this the beginning of the Democrats forcing Biden not to run for re-election?

 

[SaintForLife]

I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again.


So what?

Ok, let’s assume for discussion that Hillaryn completely made up everything and Brennan briefed Obama that she was going to completely fabricate a story that trump was in bed with Putin.

What is the sitting president supposed to do when he is told that a candidate is going to lie about another candidate?

He could have spoken publicly about
It after he was out of office, but I'm guessing Obama wasn't opposed to the plan.

It more about Brennan briefing him about the plan and the intelligence official sending a referral to Comey & Strzok about the Clinton Intelligence Plan. That documentation, along with the discredited Steele Dossier/alfa bank/yotaphoes, shows that Hillary created the Trump Russia collusion narrative.

 

[brandon]

Wow. Raskin throwing Hunter under the bus. Is this the beginning of the Democrats forcing Biden not to run for re-election?

Would you like that?

 

[FullMonte]

He could have spoken publicly about
It after he was out of office, but I'm guessing Obama wasn't opposed to the plan.

It more about Brennan briefing him about the plan and the intelligence official sending a referral to Comey & Strzok about the Clinton Intelligence Plan. That documentation, along with the discredited Steele Dossier/alfa bank/yotaphoes, shows that Hillary created the Trump Russia collusion narrative.

So you think that a president should speak out publicly when he finds out that a candidate for office is going to lie about their opponent? But, I have to point out that your stated belief that Obama not speaking out means that you believe that Obama wasn't opposed to the plan must also apply to members of the other party...so, I assume you also believe that Trump was not opposed to the plan that was put into place to try and steal the 2020 election.

And, what is it that Hillary did to convince the members of Trump's campaign to repeatedly have meetings with Russians? How did Hillary convince Don Jr and others to meet with an attorney from Russia offering dirt on herself?

 

[SaintForLife]

Would you like that?

I'd like neither Biden or Trump to run again.

 

[SaintForLife]

So you think that a president should speak out publicly when he finds out that a candidate for office is going to lie about their opponent? But, I have to point out that your stated belief that Obama not speaking out means that you believe that Obama wasn't opposed to the plan must also apply to members of the other party...so, I assume you also believe that Trump was not opposed to the plan that was put into place to try and steal the 2020 election.

I like how you try to minimize it down to just lying about their opponent as opposed to putting a scheme in place that included fabricating the BS Steele Dossier, the Alfa Bank Hoax and the BS Yotaphones story.

The documentation from the Durham report is more important than a hypothetical question about what Obama shoulf have done. But I understand its easier to focus on an insignificant detail than for you to admit Hillary made it all up

And, what is it that Hillary did to convince the members of Trump's campaign to repeatedly have meetings with Russians? How did Hillary convince Don Jr and others to meet with an attorney from Russia offering dirt on herself?

It was well known that Trump did business in Russia and he hired some sketchy people on his campaign like Manafort. Is it bad or illegal for someone on a campaign to meet with a Russian, someone from China, Pakistan, etc?

We know that Trump Tower meeting had Fusion GPS fingerprints all over it. The same Fusion GPS that was working for Hillary and created the BS Steele Dossier. Fusion GPS supplied the documents that Veselnitskaya brought to the meeting and Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting. That sounds like a honeypot scheme to me.