It is plainly obvious that there is no corruption involving Hunter Biden and even if there was it has nothing to do with Joe Biden.
He never put Kumquat Inc. in a state of trust, so he continues to be its CEO (or whatever title he held in it). He deliberately directs public funds to his own company (e.g., demands that he and his entourage are quartered in expensive Kumquat properties). If that is not a violation of the emoluments clause, then the clause itself has no meaning.
Of course I actually believe it. Can you enumerate some facts to establish that it is not factual?
Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings, a Ukraine natural gas company owned by a post-communism oligarch and also a politician turned money launderer, to act as a shield for the anti-corruption investigations being requested by the US. Joe Biden was the point man for the US relations with Ukraine at the time Hunter was hired. Hunter had no relevant skills or attributes to work for a natural gas company besides his relation to his father, and the idea that he was hired on an expensive contract to improve corporate governance is ridiculous. It’s a clear conflict of interest and Joe Biden did nothing to mitigate that conflict of interest. His own aides and the Obama administration warned Joe Biden about the problem, but Joe decided he could handle it by not discussing business with his son.
I realise there isn’t a chance in Hell that Joe Biden, should he become President, will open an investigation that could hurt him and his son. But if Trump is investigated on bribery charges, the question of if there was any corruption involving the Bidens that deserved investigation will become relevant. And if you, or the other posters in this thread, want justice to be independent of the White House, then a special prosecutor or special investigator should have the scope to examine if the corruption that Trump wanted investigated was purely fantasy, or had a realistic basis worthy of investigation.
But hey,
If that’s your belief, then you have no objection to an independent prosecutor or investigator looking into potential wrongdoing by the Bidens, correct?
False.
False.
False.
There’s at least three clearly false statements in your first paragraph so I didn’t bother to read the rest of the fairy tale you’re telling. What do you gain by posting this calumny?
Absolutely. I want all of our politicians and leaders to be on the up and up. If there was illegal behavior on his part, I want to know about it.
And if it does turn out that the Bidens did something wrong, I would like an investigation into why the Trump administration did not use the proper channels to investigate this crime, delaying proper justice being done.
I’m not aware of any time a violation of an oath of office has resulted in a criminal charge of perjury. Can you provide an example of an instance where someone was convicted of perjury for violating their oath of office?
You are aware that perjury and dishonesty are separate concepts correct? Perhaps you believe that dishonesty before a judge meets a discussion standard of perjury, rather than a criminal standard of perjury. If so, please provide a more detailed explanation of why you find Trump’s oath of office perjurious, an explanation worthy of debate.
As to the factuality, of whether Trump was guilty of perjury when he swore his oath of office, here’s a brief summary of the legal definition of perjury:
- “The definition of perjury is therefore much more complicated than many people realize. It requires proof of more than just a false statement in a court proceeding or otherwise under oath. In a sense, a person must make a false statement with an intent to [defraud]”
Let’s presume that an oath before a judge in a public ceremony constitutes a court. (I doubt that’s true, or otherwise quite a few divorcees would be guilty of perjury.) Courts are not mind-readers. You’re basically saying that it’s apparent that Trump wasn’t merely mouthing the words of the presidential oath of office, but was considering their meaning and rejecting that meaning because he knew that he intended to violate that oath. Do you believe that there’s clear evidence of that dishonest intention that would hold up in a court of law? Please provide a statement from Trump prior to his inauguration that shows he intended to wilfully violate his oath of office. Otherwise you’re just casting aspersions that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
There’s a lot of that going around.
For your first and second questions, please explain why Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings? Do you really believe he was an expert in Ukrainian corporate governance? Did you even glance at the Wikipedia cite?
For the third, here’s a New York Times article from 2015 detailing the conflict of interest.
As for what I gain, sometimes it’s fun to be contrarian and fight casual ignorance with an informed opinion and actual facts.
You should give that a shot some time.
For the sake of argument let’s say all of the accusations against Hunter and Joe Biden are 100% true.
Why didn’t Trump have him investigated via the normal, usual and proper channels? Why mess around with bribing the Ukrainian government?
I am all for cleaning the government and that absolutely includes democrats as much as republicans.
If Trump knew he had a slam-dunk case here it would be trivial for him to get a proper investigation running. But he did not do that. Why?
I agree with you. If there is going to be an investigation into the alleged “bribery” for withholding appropriations, then it should address why Trump acted outside of the usual norms for investigating misconduct by a government official. However, it should also assess whether not using the proper channels is a crime, which I doubt.
Do you want to count the number of cites I’ve provided in this thread versus the number of cites you’ve provided in this thread? I notice you’re not disputing my rebuttal, but just countering my counter-snark with more counter-snark. I think your comment is trying to throw shade, but instead all it does is display dimness.
You typed false statements and then provided cites that demonstrated that your statements were false. There’s really nothing left for me to do.
Just not using the proper channel may not be a crime, even if it caused a delay of justice, but extorting another country into doing an investigation by withholding aid that it needs to combat a mutual enemy just might be.
There is a reason that we have proper channels. If I suspect you of a crime, and I extort your neighbor into testifying against you, whether or not their testimony is valid and truthful, whether or not you are guilty, I still committed extortion.
If Trump had a slam-dunk case, then he should have pursued it through the “usual and proper channels”. I’m not arguing against that principle. I’m questioning whether his decision to pursue the case against the Bidens through other channels was criminal, and if it should be re-prosecuted through judicial courts having failed to be prosecuted through the legislative court. Should the decision be made to pursue the supposed “Trump bribery case” in a judicial court, then the question of motive is relevant. Trump obviously wanted to harm Biden. I don’t dispute that. However, if Trump wanted to both harm Biden and investigate a possibly corrupt conflict-of-interest, then it’s a greyer matter. It then comes down to whether he was acting within the scope of his executive powers.
Going back to the OP, I don’t think a Biden administration, should he win the election, should pursue criminal charges against Trump for the Ukrainian bribery charges. I do agree that there is probable cause for an investigation, should a federal prosecutor wish to do so in accordance with the government’s wishes. However, I don’t believe it will be a slam-dunk case against Trump. And I do believe the motives and actions of the Bidens in the Ukraine will be called into question. The courts would then have to examine whether the conflicts-of-interest of Hunter and Joe Biden were sufficient enough for Trump to request if those conflicts-of-interest were corrupt.
And bringing non-partisanship back into the argument, if you believe that Trump should face a prosecutor because he’s acted unjustly, shouldn’t the entire situation be examined by an independent party to determine if there’s a basis for the unjust acts?
These incidents will be debated for years. Biden must avoid getting stuck in the Trump morass. It’s sufficient for Biden to frame the narrative of the Trump legacy:
Trump failed to form a government. Trump did not establish a cabinet that could create and manage the policies of the United States.
Trump was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate voted not to remove him from office.
Trump was never seriously engaged in the office of President. His tweets were adolescent, his name calling childish, his decision making infantile. He was an object of ridicule at the UN.
This needs to be the description in school text books. Biden must avoid mentioning Trump when he reverses Executive Orders. Rather he should address that an item is being reversed specifically because it was a frivolous act or it was against the interests of the United States or it was harmful to the economy etc, What Hunter or Rudy or others did is no longer relevant. Biden must be no drama and very thorough in rebuilding the government after the Trump disaster.
The exception to the above is the Coronavirus. Biden should make it the Trump Pandemic.
Come on. You’re better than that. I have every confidence in your ability to provide an intelligent rebuttal to my arguments backed by factual citations. I disbelieve that your reluctance to properly dispute my posts is based on laziness, lack of knowledge, or some sort of momentary intellectual blankness. Do please try to respond to my posts with more comprehensive arguments than basic unsubstantiated negativism.
You posted, “Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings, a Ukraine natural gas company owned by a post-communism oligarch and also a politician turned money launderer, to act as a shield for the anti-corruption investigations being requested by the US.”
Your cite says, “Biden, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with corporate governance best practices, and a consulting firm in which Biden is a partner was also retained by Burisma.”
Your own cite shows that what you posted is false.
The idea the Hunter Biden was hired to shield Burisma is a nutty conspiracy theory that doesn’t hold up to even cursory examination. There is literal zero evidence that this is the reason.
There was a person who we know was shielding Burisma from investigation. That was, of course, Viktor Shokin, the prosector who was fired at the insistence of Joe Biden and others. That’s in your cite too.