“U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.” 
If being overpaid is a crime, why the fuck hasn’t someone arrested the whole Trump family?
I get the Ukraine ‘scandal’ overall - can someone tell me what the Bidens supposedly did with China and what really happened?
I posted these in the impeachment thread and I think they give a good overview of the Hunter Biden situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%...DRYkC8xm6Lvr1A
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...DFKXYFJp2b8H_A
There is also a wikipedia article about H. Biden that lists the positions he’s held, including being appointed by GWB to the board of Amtrak.
First two links are dead - but the third had enough to give me the context I needed. Thanks.
And he still has time to travel to Batesville, Arkansas!
Sorry about that. These should work:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/here-s-what-we-know-about-joe-and-hunter-biden-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR0tt80BUwOcehLFvyeL6YUoLdcl_u62P_Ep7Ii_fw2gmDFKXYFJp2b8H_A
Here is a bit about H. Biden’s compensation:
The Background section of this article lays out a nice timeline and key players.
Does anyone know where the claim that “Biden bragged about getting rid of the prosecuter” is coming from? It seems like there was a bit from a speech or something but I haven’t been able to find it.
From my Biden thread:
There are two ways to operate in life:
-
Pick an answer. Decide that your answer is correct. Declare things that disagree with your answer to be false, lies, and only exist as personal attacks on you and the world. And, of course, declare anything which agrees with your answer to be further and inviolable proof of the answers correctness.
-
Have no opinion on things. If someone suggests that something might be true, you investigate that and use evidence that is discovered to determine if any of it contradicts the suggested idea. If the evidence contradicts the idea, then the idea is not true. If the evidence does not contradict the idea then it’s possibly true but there may be other ideas that would also explain the same evidence. But, minus alternative ideas that would also explain the evidence, the one idea is the leading idea and should be treated as truth until alternate hypotheses are raised.
Between 1 and 2 is a spectrum of ways to operate, of course, but only pure adherence to 2 is a sane or useful way to operate.
Joe Biden may become the next President of the United States. Our job as citizens is to determine whether he is a person that we trust to work for the entire populace of the country, preserve and execute the law of the land, and do the work of becoming informed on the subjects that will impact our country and make deliberative and rational decisions on the basis of that information.
Someone has said that we could not trust him.
Now we can either use ad hominem character attacks on the accuser - seeing that criminal accusations only ever come from impeachably good people of perfect character - or simply review the accusation and the merits of the accusation and let that go where it leads, regardless of any personal feelings on the matter.
I vote that the latter is more useful to the country and is, expressly, the job of the electorate leading in to an election.
In the case of Biden, in the basis of what I have seen and know, I lean towards him being innocent. But if better evidence comes in to show that he is probably guilty, then he is probably guilty. Personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant. He could have the perfect policy agenda for the nation but, if he’s a crook, then he should go to jail. And if anyone votes for him on his policy even though there be sufficient evidence of criminality, then they are failing in their duty as a citizen.
I propose that you don’t believe this. To demonstrate, allow me to suggest some things that might be true:
Giuliani when he was twelve once ate fifteen muffins at one sitting.
There is a duck in Central Park with a broken left wing.
If you bundle five pounds of uncooked spaghetti together with twine and then boil it, the twine will break through the spaghetti, every time.
George Stephanopoulos likes to use the treadmill while listening to Beyonce.
Outside my house, there’s a red pickup truck.
Is it “sane or useful”, now that “someone [me] suggests that something might be true,” to “investigate that and use evidence that is discovered to determine if any of it contradicts the suggested idea”?
Hell no it’s not. You correctly realize that none of my claims are worth investigating, because I’m not making them in good faith: I’m just making them to waste your time.
One way to stop a vampire is to scatter poppy seeds around the grave: the risen vampire will be unable to stop itself from counting the seeds and will be effectively trapped until sunrise. If you don’t have a filter that helps you recognize claims made in bad faith, you’re going to be just as trapped as that vampire.
The Hunter Biden claims? Super bad faith. Don’t be a vampire.
Ergo, I also noted that Biden is running for President.
But otherwise, yes, we only have so many hours in a day and would happily add a qualifier noting “pending the time and value in doing so”. But, I would also want to more strongly endorse the “having no opinion” part if we add that in to the description. If you haven’t done the investigation, you should have no opinion. I have no opinion about whether there is or is not a duck with a broken wing in your local park (or whatever the example was).
I have no real opinion on the Biden matter, sure–because it’s not something I, or anyone outside of law enforcement, needs to have an opinion on at this point. There’s no credible claim being made on the subject. The only claims being made are being made in bad faith.
And what your #2 method leaves out is evaluating which claims SHOULD be evaluated. It’s real important to be able to choose between claims worth looking into, and claims not worth looking into.
Minus looking, how are you supposed to identify?
I advocate for timeboxing. You decide how long it’s worth and do that much honest investigation.
But, deciding in advance that there’s “no there there” is always bad.
Being honest about the limitations of a timeboxed view is bad.
This thread allows people to surface any real evidence, if it can be done. For my personal level of timeboxing for the subject, I’m willing to take a brief look at their quotations but I largely leave it to others at this point.
Don’t you think the Hunter Biden claims have now been sufficiently debunked? They really have. If it were my thread, I’d probably say, “well, looks like it was all a conspiracy theory started up by that guy at The Hill. The timing doesn’t work and there’s zero evidence of any wrongdoing. I’m glad we looked into this, but this issue can be put to bed. Can a mod please close this thread at this point?”
Are you sure this isn’t a typo and you meant “insane”? We live in a world with finite resources, including our own time. Needing to personally investigate every crackpot theory before rendering an opinion on the matter is just going to be an exercise in pointless frustration.
I don’t need to personally investigate your patent for a energy creation machine that violates the laws of thermodynamics, no. It’s not up to me to prove you are wrong, nor do I really care much to look at your evidence, or read your newsletter. I’m still about 99.99% confident that you are wrong, and I’m not going to waste my time on the minuscule chance you may have actually discovered something that completely upends physics while working in your garage.
You might take a gander at the OP.
Thanks for that.
I read every post in this thread, including the OP. You didn’t think there was any there there, and everyone basically agrees, so why not just ask to have it closed rather than allowing a place for someone to post that, hey, Hunter made money while serving on a board (the horrors!) so there’s obviously something dirty there.
Whatever. It’s your thread, enjoy!
Before it’s closed I’ll add that the Republicans ought to be trying like Hell to get Biden nominated, because Trump has the best chance of winning against him. Next best is Bernie, because he has screaming, idiotic online followers you can mine for “This Is What Bernie Bros Actually Believe” segments, in order to paint the whole DNC as the Cult Of Bernie The Jew Socialist Who’s Gun-Grabbing And Jewish.
Tramp himself may feel most threatened by Ms Warren. But his grasp on reality is… quirky. Biden now, sure, but with a Warren poll bounce, she’ll get the full treatment.
BTW I’m in the “Biden is too old for this shit” camp.
Bidens are easy oppo targets because they’ve been around awhile. Anything can be linked to them, with or without basis. That’s how conspiracy theories are built.
[ol]
[li] Point to some stuff: people, places, things, events, whatever.[/li] (None of that ‘stuff’ need be actual. Invent-em as needed.)
[li] Fantasize some connection between them. That fantasy is now fact.[/li][li] Point to other stuff. Fantasize more links. Now you have more facts.[/li][li] Any contradictions or critiques are obviously enemy disinfo.[/li][/ol]
We shall soon learn about Biden family depravities, degeneracies, impurities, drug or sex etc addictions, ritual Satanic tattoos, cheating in kindergarten, bed-wetting, and Area 51 secrets. What? Hunter Biden is a Zeta Reticulan hybrid? Lord have mercy!