Miscellaneous Trump (6 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[TampaJoe]

I thought you said that you were done with this discussion but maybe that is only the case when you are faced with the PROVEN falsification of "evidence" done by the Maga Republicans trying to frame Biden? Yet here you go again spreading the same story over again

Well now is your chance to answer this - How come you won't answer the question -- Why do you dismiss the fact that they fabricated false evidence in an official hearing?

You made an assertion regarding my example. So I did respond to that. Take it for what it is worth.

As for allegations of false or fabricated evidence, I already said that I don’t condone such fraud and corruption if true. But as has been pointed out, none of us can do a damn thing about corruption in government. As has been pointed out, this is old news. So I have made my point. You have made yours. We simply don’t agree. I am okay with that since neither one of us has the power to affect policy anyway.

 

[TampaJoe]

Do you even understand what is meant by a “conflict of interest”. I don’t give a crap about Hunters qualifications or whether he was a government employee. The fact that he was the son of the VP who was making policy in Ukraine created the conflict. You wouldn’t know a potential conflict of interest if it bit you on the arse. That IS willful ignorance on your part. You demonstrate it post after post. So yes there was an obvious conflict of interest.

There is an obvious conflict of interest with Trump. There is a potential conflict of interest with Thomas as far as Harlan Crowe is concerned and a real conflict on interest with Thomas as far as cases where his wife is indirectly involved.

This is exactly why I don’t trust folks like you who claim Democrats would police their own. You are full of excuses and you can’t recognize potential conflicts of interest when they are starring you in the face. That why this won’t change. You have no standard that you are willing to hold when it comes to your party. You will just make the same excuses that your criticize the GOP for making.

I must have missed it. Can you point me to the post again so I can read it and make sure I am understanding you?

Biden was an officer of the government. Unless you want to dispute that fact. He influenced foreign policy in Ukraine. Unless you want to dispute that fact. He openly bragged about forcing to termination of the prosecutor. Unless you want to dispute that fact. His son was a board member of a company under investigation. Unless you want to dispute that fact. Biden was aware of his son’s employment. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

So there is a conflict of interest. It existed. Biden should not have been involved at all. We don’t know what other policy Biden affected. The fact a conflict exists at undermines any decision he may have influence over as it relates to Ukraine.

It isn’t any difference that the pototential conflict Justice Thomas would have in cases involving his wife. He shouldn’t be anywhere near those cases.

 

[coldseat]

Biden was an officer of the government. Unless you want to dispute that fact. He influenced foreign policy in Ukraine. Unless you want to dispute that fact. He openly bragged about forcing to termination of the prosecutor. Unless you want to dispute that fact. His son was a board member of a company under investigation. Unless you want to dispute that fact. Biden was aware of his son’s employment. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

So there is a conflict of interest. It existed. Biden should not have been involved at all. We don’t know what other policy Biden affected. The fact a conflict exists at undermines any decision he may have influence over as it relates to Ukraine.

It isn’t any difference that the potential conflict Justice Thomas would have in cases involving his wife. He shouldn’t be anywhere near those cases.

That is where you are wrong, it is very different. Joe Biden's conflict of interest in regards to Hunter Biden working for Burisma was not a direct conflict of interest. Burisma did not have direct dealings with the US Government, of which Biden represented. Biden's foreign policy work on behalf of the US government was with Ukraine and had to do with the lead prosecutor not prosecuting corruption. Of which Burisma's CEO was a possible beneficiary (of not prosecuting corruption). Still, Burisma was not the focus Biden's work and Biden's foreign policy work went directly against the interest of Burisma's CEO. At best this was a second tier conflict of interest, but one that in reality had no effect on the outcome in any observable way.

Clarence Thomas conflict where direct when it comes to Crow and Leo, and he was a direct beneficiary of that corrupt conflict of interest. It wasn't just his wife, although that's also a direct conflict of interest. The fact that you're even making this comparison demonstrates you inability to be impartial and judge these matters fairly. You clearly believe that Democrats should be held to a much stricter standard than Republicans when it comes to conflict of interest and corruption.

 

[Dragon]

You made an assertion regarding my example. So I did respond to that. Take it for what it is worth.

As for allegations of false or fabricated evidence, I already said that I don’t condone such fraud and corruption if true. But as has been pointed out, none of us can do a damn thing about corruption in government. As has been pointed out, this is old news. So I have made my point. You have made yours. We simply don’t agree. I am okay with that since neither one of us has the power to affect policy anyway.

What you call "old news" are a few years younger than the story about Ukraine you keep promoting. And those falsified emails were proven false by the democrats by showing both originals and doctored documents side by side.

 

[Dragon]

You made an assertion regarding my example. So I did respond to that. Take it for what it is worth.

As for allegations of false or fabricated evidence, I already said that I don’t condone such fraud and corruption if true. But as has been pointed out, none of us can do a damn thing about corruption in government. As has been pointed out, this is old news. So I have made my point. You have made yours. We simply don’t agree. I am okay with that since neither one of us has the power to affect policy anyway.

What you call "old news" are a few years younger than the story about Ukraine you keep promoting. And those falsified emails were proven false by the democrats by showing both originals and doctored documents side by side.

You keep minimizing every kind of Republican Maga corruption and keep spreading lies about Biden and Ukraine. In what way did Burisma in any way benefit from Biden lightning a fire under Ukraine to deal with the corruption in that country?

And why do you excuse the Maga republicans cutting and pasting messages to fraudulently try to prove something that never happened?

 

[J-DONK]

That is where you are wrong, it is very different. Joe Biden's conflict of interest in regards to Hunter Biden working for Burisma was not a direct conflict of interest. Burisma did not have direct dealings with the US Government, of which Biden represented. Biden's foreign policy work on behalf of the US government was with Ukraine and had to do with the lead prosecutor not prosecuting corruption. Of which Burisma's CEO was a possible beneficiary (of not prosecuting corruption). Still, Burisma was not the focus Biden's work and Biden's foreign policy work went directly against the interest of Burisma's CEO. At best this was a second tier conflict of interest, but one that in reality had no effect on the outcome in any observable way.

Clarence Thomas conflict where direct when it comes to Crow and Leo, and he was a direct beneficiary of that corrupt conflict of interest. It wasn't just his wife, although that's also a direct conflict of interest. The fact that you're even making this comparison demonstrates you inability to be impartial and judge these matters fairly. You clearly believe that Democrats should be held to a much stricter standard than Republicans when it comes to conflict of interest and corruption.

Conseratives on the board, a great comparison to Hunter Biden corruption would be the Kushner's investment firm deal. It was magnitudes worse considering they gave him 2 billion to invest, and collect fees on.(Hunter made 4 million from Burisma.) Kushner also did this months after leaving the White House. The cherry on top? Kushner is part of actual "crime family".

Hunter Biden had admitted that he got the Bursima job because of his dad. Is that soft corruption? Of course.

Kushner, and Trump defend that investment deal to this day.

Also please stop with the both sides nonsense. You refuse to hold your "side" to any kind of ethical, or legal guardrails. You then try, and blowup the single example you can find from a ex-crack addict.

It's not a good look.

 

[TampaJoe]

That is where you are wrong, it is very different. Joe Biden's conflict of interest in regards to Hunter Biden working for Burisma was not a direct conflict of interest. Burisma did not have direct dealings with the US Government, of which Biden represented. Biden's foreign policy work on behalf of the US government was with Ukraine and had to do with the lead prosecutor not prosecuting corruption. Of which Burisma's CEO was a possible beneficiary (of not prosecuting corruption). Still, Burisma was not the focus Biden's work and Biden's foreign policy work went directly against the interest of Burisma's CEO. At best this was a second tier conflict of interest, but one that in reality had no effect on the outcome in any observable way.

Clarence Thomas conflict where direct when it comes to Crow and Leo, and he was a direct beneficiary of that corrupt conflict of interest. It wasn't just his wife, although that's also a direct conflict of interest. The fact that you're even making this comparison demonstrates you inability to be impartial and judge these matters fairly. You clearly believe that Democrats should be held to a much stricter standard than Republicans when it comes to conflict of interest and corruption.

so you agree a potential conflict of interest existed in Ukraine. First tier or second tier? Not sure what difference it makes. Nor does it make any difference as to whether his decision did or did not benefit Burisma. A conflict existed.

The Crowe matter is a little more of a gray area. I believe there is one case where Thomas was unaware of Crowes interest. But merely taking large gifts from someone other than a relative can be problematic. As to cases where his wife is directly or indirectly involved, I believe an obvious conflict exists. It doesn’t matter how Thomas decides or whether his vote would or would not change the decision. He shouldn’t be involved at all.

 

[TampaJoe]

What you call "old news" are a few years younger than the story about Ukraine you keep promoting. And those falsified emails were proven false by the democrats by showing both originals and doctored documents side by side.

Talk to Dave. I think he called it old news. Another poster said it was immaterial. But it doesn’t matter one way or the other what you or I think. We don’t affect policy.

I understand your point. I haven’t seen the fraudulent documents you claim exist but will take you at your work that some of them may not be credible. However I do believe the bank transactions are the real deal. I don’t believe Hunter is either a good businessman or a good lawyer. I don’t believe he had anything to offer those foreigners other than his name. Now you may disagree. That is okay by me.

It is what it is.

I am not excusing anything. I’m just accepting the fact that we can’t or won’t do anything about it. By we I mean the electorate and our elected representatives. If so it would already have been done. We didn’t get to where we are overnight and we don’t have the stomach for reform.

 

[Dragon]

so you agree a potential conflict of interest existed in Ukraine. First tier or second tier? Not sure what difference it makes. Nor does it make any difference as to whether his decision did or did not benefit Burisma. A conflict existed.

The Crowe matter is a little more of a gray area. I believe there is one case where Thomas was unaware of Crowes interest. But merely taking large gifts from someone other than a relative can be problematic. As to cases where his wife is directly or indirectly involved, I believe an obvious conflict exists. It doesn’t matter how Thomas decides or whether his vote would or would not change the decision. He shouldn’t be involved at all.

He did not report that gift or other gifts like expensive vacations which he was required to do BY LAW for years until the press began to write about it! As a supreme court justice he could not claim lack of knowledge of one of the most basic laws covering gifts to public servants.

 

[Dragon]

Talk to Dave. I think he called it old news. Another poster said it was immaterial. But it doesn’t matter one way or the other what you or I think. We don’t affect policy.

I understand your point. I haven’t seen the fraudulent documents you claim exist but will take you at your work that some of them may not be credible. However I do believe the bank transactions are the real deal. I don’t believe Hunter is either a good businessman or a good lawyer. I don’t believe he had anything to offer those foreigners other than his name. Now you may disagree. That is okay by me.

It is what it is.

The bank transactions was repayment of a car loan and both the original loan AND the repayment was documented by bank statements, It is not a disagreement - that is facts verifiable by the banks involved

 

[TampaJoe]

Conseratives on the board, a great comparison to Hunter Biden corruption would be the Kushner's investment firm deal. It was magnitudes worse considering they gave him 2 billion to invest, and collect fees on.(Hunter made 4 million from Burisma.) Kushner also did this months after leaving the White House. The cherry on top? Kushner is part of actual "crime family".

Hunter Biden had admitted that he got the Bursima job because of his dad. Is that soft corruption? Of course.

Kushner, and Trump defend that investment deal to this day.

Also please stop with the both sides nonsense. You refuse to hold your "side" to any kind of ethical, or legal guardrails. You then try, and blowup the single example you can find from a ex-crack addict.

It's not a good look.

I don’t disagree that Trump and Biden both had conflicts of interest issues with the families. I think I’ve said it numerous times. I haven’t excused it. Not once.

I am willing to hold my elected representatives to the same ethical standards as you hold yours. Influence peddling and self dealing at the highest level of government is not acceptable at ANY amount. To your point. It’s not a good look. Not to our allies. Not to our enemies. Not to our fellow citizens.

So we as citizens aren’t going to do anything about it. Just complain. If that’s okay with you. It’s okay with me.

 

[TampaJoe]

The bank transactions was repayment of a car loan and both the original loan AND the repayment was documented by bank statements, It is not a disagreement - that is facts verifiable by the banks involved

Those weren’t the only questionable transactions. The treasury flagged over 150.

 

[TampaJoe]

He did not report that gift or other gifts like expensive vacations which he was required to do BY LAW for years until the press began to write about it! As a supreme court justice he could not claim lack of knowledge of one of the most basic laws covering gifts to public servants.

Yep. He has some issues ethically.

 

[Dragon]

Yep. He has some issues ethically.

Downplaying Maga Republican corruption again? "some issues ethically" when recieving expensive gifts and travels from people with cases in front of the SC?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Biden was an officer of the government. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

Fact.

He influenced foreign policy in Ukraine. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

Fact, though I think it needs to be made clear that this wasn't just US foreign policy. It was the position of the US, the EU, the World Bank, and the IMF.

He openly bragged about forcing to termination of the prosecutor. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

Fact.

His son was a board member of a company under investigation. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

Fact.

Biden was aware of his son’s employment. Unless you want to dispute that fact.

Fact.

So there is a conflict of interest. It existed. Biden should not have been involved at all. We don’t know what other policy Biden affected. The fact a conflict exists at undermines any decision he may have influence over as it relates to Ukraine.

This is where you lose the plot. Joe Biden's job was to make it known that firing Viktor Shokin, which would have a detrimental effect on Hunter Biden's employers, was necessary to secure a billion-dollar loan, which was the official position of the White House. A conflict of interest requires a person to be in a position to enrich themselves through official actions. How did Joe Biden enrich himself (or find himself in a position to enrich himself) by enforcing a bipartisan and multinational policy that would see a corruption investigation launched into the company Hunter worked for?

It isn’t any difference that the pototential conflict Justice Thomas would have in cases involving his wife. He shouldn’t be anywhere near those cases.

It's miles different. I would give you a hypothetical analogy to convey this fact, but you don't like them.

 

[TampaJoe]

Downplaying Maga Republican corruption again? "some issues ethically" when recieving expensive gifts and travels from people with cases in front of the SC?

Which cases? Specifically. I know of only one case years ago where Crowe had a limited interest in a company involved in the case and Thomas was unaware of Crowes interest. Other than that, I am unaware that he has accepted gifts from anyone with business before the court.

I do admit readily and repeatedly, that he may have ethical problems as accepting gifts from someone other than family gives the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. But as has been discussed on the board, it isn’t illegal and gets a pass. Not my standard.

I wouldn’t do it. I would ban such practices. But I don’t set ethical standards for the US Govt.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t disagree that Trump and Biden both had conflicts of interest issues with the families. I think I’ve said it numerous times. I haven’t excused it. Not once.

I am willing to hold my elected representatives to the same ethical standards as you hold yours. Influence peddling and self dealing at the highest level of government is not acceptable at ANY amount. To your point. It’s not a good look. Not to our allies. Not to our enemies. Not to our fellow citizens.

So we as citizens aren’t going to do anything about it. Just complain. If that’s okay with you. It’s okay with me.

Sure. Can you give examples of Joe Biden peddling his influence or self-dealing?

 

[TampaJoe]

Fact.



Fact, though I think it needs to be made clear that this wasn't just US foreign policy. It was the position of the US, the EU, the World Bank, and the IMF.



Fact.



Fact.



Fact.



This is where you lose the plot. Joe Biden's job was to make it known that firing Viktor Shokin, which would have a detrimental effect on Hunter Biden's employers, was necessary to secure a billion-dollar loan, which was the official position of the White House. A conflict of interest requires a person to be in a position to enrich themselves through official actions. How did Joe Biden enrich himself (or find himself in a position to enrich himself) by enforcing a bipartisan and multinational policy that would see a corruption investigation launched into the company Hunter worked for?



It's miles different. I would give you a hypothetical analogy to convey this fact, but you don't like them.

No. Not really. He was in a position to either benefit himself or his son. Whether he did or not is not relevant to whether he had a conflict of interest. It existed.

If I have a client who is negotiating a deal that could benefit a company where my son is a member of the board. I have a conflict of interest by definition. I may do nothing but the conflict exists. And we may never know if there was some other hidden benefit. That’s hard to prove. That’s why companies and other organizations have rules that govern these arrangements.

Go read some books on ethics especially as it affects conflicts of interests and the fiduciary responsibilities of professionals and corporate officers. This stuff isn’t new.