Hunter Biden's Alleged Corruption [Mod title Edit] (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,655
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Madisonville
Offline
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.

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.
 

Saint by the Bay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
293
Reaction score
750
Age
47
Location
Houston, TX
Online
Pence can only pardon him from Federal charges, not state. Also, being pardoned is effectively admitting he did something wrong, and Trump would never do that. Plus his lawyers have him convinced he can pardon himself, which may or may not be true.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
635
Reaction score
1,399
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Pence can only pardon him from Federal charges, not state. Also, being pardoned is effectively admitting he did something wrong, and Trump would never do that. Plus his lawyers have him convinced he can pardon himself, which may or may not be true.
And one of the many questions that Barrett refused to answer was whether or not she thinks a president can pardon themselves.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
And one of the many questions that Barrett refused to answer was whether or not she thinks a president can pardon themselves.
Well, I wouldn't answer that if it hasn't ever been litigated. And since it's in the realm of possibility, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole during the confirmation hearings.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Well, I wouldn't answer that if it hasn't ever been litigated. And since it's in the realm of possibility, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole during the confirmation hearings.
Well, if it was me, I'd have no problem sharing my thoughts on the matter while citing precedence to support my thoughts. I'd even discuss it from the position of why they can and why then can't.

I understand not giving a definitive answer. She was not asked how she would rule, she was asked to share her thoughts. Funny how justices have no problem sharing their thoughts before being a nominee or after being put on the court. Funny how it's only inappropriate to share their thoughts when they are being interviewed for an actual position on the Supreme Court.

That said, not willing to give a definitive answer and not willing to discuss it at all are two different things. She was being evasive, no matter how one tries to spin it. If any of us avoid answering questions for any type of interview for any type of position, we are not going to get that position.

It should be the same for Supreme Court justices, no matter how one tires to spin it.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
Well, if it was me, I'd have no problem sharing my thoughts on the matter while citing precedence to support my thoughts. I'd even discuss it from the position of why they can and why then can't.

I understand not giving a definitive answer. She was not asked how she would rule, she was asked to share her thoughts. Funny how justices have no problem sharing their thoughts before being a nominee or after being put on the court. Funny how it's only inappropriate to share their thoughts when they are being interviewed for an actual position on the Supreme Court.

That said, not willing to give a definitive answer and not willing to discuss it at all are two different things. She was being evasive, no matter how one tries to spin it. If any of us avoid answering questions for any type of interview for any type of position, we are not going to get that position.

It should be the same for Supreme Court justices, no matter how one tires to spin it.
Understood. I don't disagree with a lot of that. And I think she probably could answer it like you suggested. But, when the Ginsberg rule was first outlined. It set guardrails on what nominees should and should not give opinions on and the extent of that probably varies to some degree from nominee to nominee. Sort of like the living document concept, heh. I wish she would have answered it, but I don't know that I would if I were sitting in that chair. Easier said than done I guess.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
The "Ginsberg rule" is not a formal Senate rule, is not a law and has no basis in the Constitution at all, so there is no living document aspect to the "Ginsberg rule" at all.

I don't think it's so hard to answer questions if one is confident in their ability to competently answer the question, isn't playing political games and have nothing to hide.

I have zero doubt that if Trump tries to pardon himself and Barrett makes it to the Supreme Court, she will rule in favor of Trump being able to pardon himself. It's completely outside this realm of reality that Trump didn't ask her about that and how she would rule in the different ways he plans on challenging the election if he loses.
 
Last edited:

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
The "Ginsberg rule" is not a formal Senate rule, is not a law and has no basis in the Constitution at all, so their is no living document aspect to the "Ginsberg rule" at all.

I don't think it's so hard to answer questions if one is confident in their ability to competently answer the question, isn't playing political games and have nothing to hide.

I have zero doubt that if Trump tries to pardon himself and Barrett makes it to the Supreme Court, she will rule in favor of Trump being able to pardon himself. It's completely outside this realm of reality that Trump didn't ask her about that and how she would rule in the different ways he plans on challenging the election if he loses.
If that's the case, she shouldn't be allowed to hear the case, and it probably should be disqualifying because she clearly stated that she hasn't spoken to Trump about any current, pending or potential future case. I just don't see her perjuring herself like that.

As for the Ginsberg 'rule', I realize all that. I was just drawing a comparison to the interpretation of the Constitution as an example.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
194
Reaction score
298
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
I can go on all day. But I am anything but a single minded ideological partisan.
I have many disparate views on a wide range of issues, too. But at the end of the day Biden comes closest for me. It just happens to be an upside that he isn't bent on undermining democratic (small 'd') norms.
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.
I just think the U.S. Constitution is vastly overrated in terms of being unique in providing liberties. There are plenty of other civilized democracies in this world with equal, or greater, protections. The U.S. Constitution is as archaic as the two-party system and was conceived in an era when the two-party system was dominant. I would submit to you that, if that weren't the case, the U.S. Constitution might have looked very different if crafted in a multi-party system.
 
Last edited:

FullMonte

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
462
Reaction score
822
Age
52
Location
Bossier City
Offline
Well, if it was me, I'd have no problem sharing my thoughts on the matter while citing precedence to support my thoughts. I'd even discuss it from the position of why they can and why then can't.
What precedence? It's never been tried before (as far as I know), so there's no precedence. It's also impossible to discuss it from the position of why they can or can't when you have no legal argument to use.

It's fine to have a personal opinion as to whether or not someone can do that, but as a Supreme Court justice, without reading the actual arguments made by both sides, there is no way to state a valid legal opinion.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
What precedence? It's never been tried before (as far as I know), so there's no precedence. It's also impossible to discuss it from the position of why they can or can't when you have no legal argument to use.

It's fine to have a personal opinion as to whether or not someone can do that, but as a Supreme Court justice, without reading the actual arguments made by both sides, there is no way to state a valid legal opinion.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure she stated that hasn't been litigated yet, so by definition there wouldn't be precedence on the issue.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
898
Reaction score
952
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
What precedence? It's never been tried before (as far as I know), so there's no precedence. It's also impossible to discuss it from the position of why they can or can't when you have no legal argument to use.

It's fine to have a personal opinion as to whether or not someone can do that, but as a Supreme Court justice, without reading the actual arguments made by both sides, there is no way to state a valid legal opinion.
Precedence is not always completely specific, sometimes it's related. If Trump tries to pardon himself and a case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices will have to vote on a ruling. They will look to theories and ideas from other cases that have similar elements to the pardon case as related precedence. They are going to base their vote/opinion based on some similar legal precedence when they vote, they aren't going to just pull a decision out of thin air.

The same thing can be done when just discussing whether or not it would be constitutional. There's a difference between saying "this is what I think based on these things" and "this is how I would rule on any case on this matter."
 

EmBeeFiveOhFour

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
342
Reaction score
951
Location
Near a River's Bend
Offline
Trump doesn't need to pardon himself. I don't think you could possibly find a jury in America that would ever unanimously convict him of anything, no matter the evidence. No prosecutor is going to be able to strike every single one of his rabid 30-35% followers from a jury, regardless of the venue. Thinking Trump will ever spend a day in prison is a fantasy.

Now, Jared Kushner on the other hand...
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
4,110
Location
Midwest
Offline
Oh I think a jury could definitely be seated, depends on where you seat this jury. His followers aren’t really evenly sprinkled throughout the country.

He and Rudy are knowingly disseminating Russian disinformation in an effort to manipulate a US presidential election. Barr knows it, and does nothing. Trump’s toady at DHS knows it and does nothing. They all need to face justice when this is over.

Trump tonight at a rally is bleating that Obama and the Bidens need to be “locked up”. He needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
 

FullMonte

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
462
Reaction score
822
Age
52
Location
Bossier City
Offline
Precedence is not always completely specific, sometimes it's related. If Trump tries to pardon himself and a case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices will have to vote on a ruling. They will look to theories and ideas from other cases that have similar elements to the pardon case as related precedence. They are going to base their vote/opinion based on some similar legal precedence when they vote, they aren't going to just pull a decision out of thin air.
That's true, but they are going to look to theories and ideas from other cases based on the arguments made by both sides. They aren't going to simply say "is it legal for the president to pardon himself," and start digging through old caselaw. They are going to look at the arguments and say "this side says that the law says this...." and they are going to go through caselaw to see if that argument is supported.

The same thing can be done when just discussing whether or not it would be constitutional. There's a difference between saying "this is what I think based on these things" and "this is how I would rule on any case on this matter."
That's 100% true. But, the thing to remember is "this is what I think based on this thing" is going to become "they said they would rule this way" if things don't go a certain way.
 

Ayo

Spirit Grocer
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
789
Reaction score
1,923
Location
Toronto
Offline
The investment in this Biden/Ukraine deal is pretty damn impressive. It’s pervasive on right punditry media in a way that I haven’t seen in a while. It seems to me that this is a pretty last ditch effort to incriminate Biden in the same way they did Hillary.

I was trolling Tim Pool’s twitter page. And the delusion is wild. I can’t imagine how lucrative this just be for Pool and Shapiro and Bongino and Kirk and the rest. The money they must be raking in, also thanks to the FB algorithm changes.

this Biden Ukraine thing is gonna be with us until the finish line.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom