I told you so.

For 4 years, you groomers said bringing up the other side is whataboutism and just avoiding the issue at hand.

Investigate Kushner. Just be sure to investigate Hunter (and Joe) with the same level of diligence.

Why is it an "either/or" thing? Can't we just approach the two cases separately since they are unrelated factually, causally, and in about every way possible?

midgett said:

---

For 4 years, you groomers said bringing up the other side is whataboutism and just avoiding the issue at hand.

Investigate Kushner. Just be sure to investigate Hunter (and Joe) with the same level of diligence.

---

Common ground. Although I hope you are not calling me a groomer or someone who opposed investigating Hunter.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Why is it an "either/or" thing? Can't we just approach the two cases separately since they are unrelated factually, causally, and in about every way possible?

---

While the two cases are strongly related as to theme and principles, agree that it is not either or.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

What a bunch of hypocrisy.

Investigate Hunter Biden until the cows come home. But do the same to Jared Kushner. The idea that we should look away from $2,000,000,000.00 in assets going to Kushner's control from a country he personally protected for four years in an official role is just ridiculous. It is graft on the largest scale ever..

---

IIRC, Hunter's control of funds was in billions as well. What he received directly was in millions.

It's a tough deal to dictate what a former official does after leaving office. Quick access to cushy employment or financial deals is shady, but how do you keep someone from being hired based on their past resume? Limit the financial gain? Place a "no deals" time period after office? I'm not sure what that would look like, but it would be a lot safer if our officials were not getting quid pro quo deals after leaving office.

Now as to using family members to skirt rules of Congress and US law for selling influence while in office, that needs to have a high burden of proof (such as setting up meetings with US officials the family member would have no other reason to have access to, large payments to the Congress member) in order to avoid a "family member" penalty on normal business dealings.

Kushner deserves pushback on his deal for the optics and potential for quid pro quo. He should have to answer some questions about the deal whether it is deemed legal or not. If it potentially breaks US law, then it needs investigation.

Hunter deserves the investigation he is getting if he truly skirted tax laws on his received gifts and funds. He and Joe Biden deserve investigation if it is apparent that Hunter sold his dad's influence and Joe benefitted from that.

I'd rather see these kinds of issues hit a courtroom rather than the floor of the Congress. Congress will just turn this kind of investigation into a public circus. It's a shame so many of our fellow Americans buy into the Congressional investigation dog and pony show.

---

Common ground.

---

The media covered up Hunter's laptop and downplayed his financial dealings, along with what appears to be involvement with Joe.

Just a few weeks ago it was confirmed legitimate by the same people had previously called it Russian disinformation (NYT & cohorts), including several IC members.

The cabal responsible for how that went down is a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger deal and alarming than potential Kushner issues. It swayed an election and now the can is being kicked until it's all swept under the rug.

---

Yep, the one thing that actually did sway the election is MSM disinformation campaigns such as saying Bidens laptop issue was Russian disinformation.

How could the media have swayed the election if Trump won anyway?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How could the media have swayed the election if Trump won anyway?

---

If 15% (or even 5%) of independents truly would have changed their vote if they had known there was a hunter biden laptop that was real, the vote would have not been close enough to contest.

There is no way the actions of the media companies in this case can be excused by rational citizens of any stripe.

---

You don't think the Biden Crime Family would have been prepared for that? Wouldn't they have just made up more votes for Joe?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I told you so.

---

I get called a partisan hack in the echo chamber all the time. Yet, the mud slingers are the one who just can't take the idea of investigating their golden cow or his family.

---

You're not a partisan, you're just blue pilled. You still view politics from a democrat versus republican mindset and see yourself in the middle.

Red-pilling is not conservatism or leftism, it's the concept that what is presented as truth by the corporate press is, in fact, a carefully constructed narrative designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power, and that they do this not by accident, but intentionally and by design.

You'd never entertain the idea that the intelligence community would engage in a cover up and get away with it.

---

First, I don't need no freaking blue pill.

Second, even if I am "blue pilled", you are a full blown conspiracy nut. Pull yourself out of the rabbit hole.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I told you so.

---

I get called a partisan hack in the echo chamber all the time. Yet, the mud slingers are the one who just can't take the idea of investigating their golden cow or his family.

---

You're not a partisan, you're just blue pilled. You still view politics from a democrat versus republican mindset and see yourself in the middle.

Red-pilling is not conservatism or leftism, it's the concept that what is presented as truth by the corporate press is, in fact, a carefully constructed narrative designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power, and that they do this not by accident, but intentionally and by design.

You'd never entertain the idea that the intelligence community would engage in a cover up and get away with it.

---

First, I don't need no freaking blue pill.

Second, even if I am "blue pilled", you are a full blown conspiracy nut. Pull yourself out of the rabbit hole.

---

Its not about wild conspiracy. It's critical thinking and having a good awareness of deception.

For example: The Biden admin and the majority of the media is calling inflation the "Putin price hike". We both know that's not true. It's actually stemming from Trump policies and unjustified federal spending plus covid.

But how is it that there's a massive centralized message by numerous outlets all blaming Putin for inflation and relieving Biden of the cause? The truth is it's coming from a well established bubble and the majority of your opinions are within those confines.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How could the media have swayed the election if Trump won anyway?

---

If 15% (or even 5%) of independents truly would have changed their vote if they had known there was a hunter biden laptop that was real, the vote would have not been close enough to contest.

There is no way the actions of the media companies in this case can be excused by rational citizens of any stripe.

---

You don't think the Biden Crime Family would have been prepared for that? Wouldn't they have just made up more votes for Joe?

---

Hardly.

Booray said:

---

More of a priority than investigating why the Saudi's gave Jared $2,000,000,000.00 to manage?

Yes or no.

---

depends..

What is Jareds profession and what was the money for..

Hunter Biden has all the job skills of a mcdonalds fry cook but has been given millions.

If Jared did something illegal or has been given money for some reason that seems way out of standard, sure look in to it. Prosecute if appropriate

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I told you so.

---

I get called a partisan hack in the echo chamber all the time. Yet, the mud slingers are the one who just can't take the idea of investigating their golden cow or his family.

---

You're not a partisan, you're just blue pilled. You still view politics from a democrat versus republican mindset and see yourself in the middle.

Red-pilling is not conservatism or leftism, it's the concept that what is presented as truth by the corporate press is, in fact, a carefully constructed narrative designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power, and that they do this not by accident, but intentionally and by design.

You'd never entertain the idea that the intelligence community would engage in a cover up and get away with it.

---

First, I don't need no freaking blue pill.

Second, even if I am "blue pilled", you are a full blown conspiracy nut. Pull yourself out of the rabbit hole.

---

Its not about wild conspiracy. It's critical thinking and having a good awareness of deception.

For example: The Biden admin and the majority of the media is calling inflation the "Putin price hike". We both know that's not true. It's actually stemming from Trump policies and unjustified federal spending plus covid.

But how is it that there's a massive centralized message by numerous outlets all blaming Putin for inflation and relieving Biden of the cause? The truth is it's well established bubble and the majority of your opinions are within those confines.

---

I listened to a public radio piece yesterday on inflation. It was very different from what you are getting.

4th and Inches said:

---

Booray said:

---

More of a priority than investigating why the Saudi's gave Jared $2,000,000,000.00 to manage?

Yes or no.

---

depends..

What is Jareds profession and what was the money for..

Hunter Biden has all the job skills of a mcdonalds fry cook but has been given millions.

If Jared did something illegal or has been given money for some reason that seems way out of standard, sure look in to it. Prosecute if appropriate

---

Jared was a real estate developer.

My point about him being unqualified comes from the Saudis. The two billion is a piece of the Kingdoms sovereign wealth fund. They have a committee that vets people/companies that manage that money. The committee agreed that Jared's company, being newly formed and without prior experience in asset management, was not qualified for the assignment.

MBS, the primary beneficiary of the Trump administration's decision to look the other way on the Khashoggi execution, overruled the committee and said give him the money.

https://theweek.com/jared-kushner/1012391/jared-kushners-firm-got-2-billion-from-saudi-wealth-fund-run-by-crown-prince

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I told you so.

---

I get called a partisan hack in the echo chamber all the time. Yet, the mud slingers are the one who just can't take the idea of investigating their golden cow or his family.

---

You're not a partisan, you're just blue pilled. You still view politics from a democrat versus republican mindset and see yourself in the middle.

Red-pilling is not conservatism or leftism, it's the concept that what is presented as truth by the corporate press is, in fact, a carefully constructed narrative designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power, and that they do this not by accident, but intentionally and by design.

You'd never entertain the idea that the intelligence community would engage in a cover up and get away with it.

---

First, I don't need no freaking blue pill.

Second, even if I am "blue pilled", you are a full blown conspiracy nut. Pull yourself out of the rabbit hole.

---

Its not about wild conspiracy. It's critical thinking and having a good awareness of deception.

For example: The Biden admin and the majority of the media is calling inflation the "Putin price hike". We both know that's not true. It's actually stemming from Trump policies and unjustified federal spending plus covid.

But how is it that there's a massive centralized message by numerous outlets all blaming Putin for inflation and relieving Biden of the cause? The truth is it's well established bubble and the majority of your opinions are within those confines.

---

I listened to a public radio piece yesterday on inflation. It was very different from what you are getting.

---

Its not really about whose right or wrong. The issue is legacy media taking barking orders from the establishment and the masses accepting it as fact.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

I had no opinion about the laptop. I was highly critical of the IC during the Trump administration, and I agree that it's dangerous for them to push propaganda.

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. How seriously am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. So how seriously I am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

---

The argument isn't that Trump shouldn't have been impeached, its that the justification for impeachment should also apply to Biden since he's accused of worse and he was caught lying.

You must understand that the precedent set for Trump must now apply to all Presidents. If not, you must concede that there are different standards.

The standards you described don't exist in reality. It's one sided. Don't be surprised if the wheels come off.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. So how seriously I am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

---

The argument isn't that Trump shouldn't have been impeached, its that the justification for impeachment should also apply to Biden since he's accused of worse and he was caught lying.

You must understand that the precedent set for Trump must now apply to all Presidents. If not, you must concede that there are different standards.

The standards you described don't exist in reality. It's one sided. Don't be surprised if the wheels come off.

---

No one should be impeached for being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. Regardless of what one thinks about the Trump impeachments, they were based on things Trump did. Everything you posted about is what Hunter did.

Maybe that leads to discovery of bad acts by Joe; if it does, then take another look at impeachment. But what I see right now is that Joe Biden might have given a photo op to people who were paying his son and that Hunter said he might reserve a cut for his dad.. That is not "a high crime or misdemeanor." Smoke, yes. Fire, no.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. So how seriously I am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

---

The argument isn't that Trump shouldn't have been impeached, its that the justification for impeachment should also apply to Biden since he's accused of worse and he was caught lying.

You must understand that the precedent set for Trump must now apply to all Presidents. If not, you must concede that there are different standards.

The standards you described don't exist in reality. It's one sided. Don't be surprised if the wheels come off.

---

What that means in reality is a race to the bottom. Nothing will make the wheels come off faster than that.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. So how seriously I am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

---

The argument isn't that Trump shouldn't have been impeached, its that the justification for impeachment should also apply to Biden since he's accused of worse and he was caught lying.

You must understand that the precedent set for Trump must now apply to all Presidents. If not, you must concede that there are different standards.

The standards you described don't exist in reality. It's one sided. Don't be surprised if the wheels come off.

---

No one should be impeached for being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. Regardless of what one thinks about the Trump impeachments, they were based on things Trump did. Everything you posted about is what Hunter did.

Maybe that leads to discovery of bad acts by Joe; if it does, then take another look at impeachment. But what I see right now is that Joe Biden might have given a photo op to people who were paying his son and that Hunter said he might reserve a cut for his dad.. That is not "a high crime or misdemeanor." Smoke, yes. Fire, no.

---

Impeachment wouldn't be on grounds of being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. They're on grounds of lying about his scuzzball son.

Joe said the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was a lie. He also denied ALL involvement where comms show that was also a lie. Whether illegal dealings or not...he lied to the American public over and over again.

Trump was impeached for inquiring about literally what the FBI is investigating. That's a REALLY low bar for justifying impeachment. Lying should easily be justification for impeachment.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. So how seriously I am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

---

The argument isn't that Trump shouldn't have been impeached, its that the justification for impeachment should also apply to Biden since he's accused of worse and he was caught lying.

You must understand that the precedent set for Trump must now apply to all Presidents. If not, you must concede that there are different standards.

The standards you described don't exist in reality. It's one sided. Don't be surprised if the wheels come off.

---

No one should be impeached for being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. Regardless of what one thinks about the Trump impeachments, they were based on things Trump did. Everything you posted about is what Hunter did.

Maybe that leads to discovery of bad acts by Joe; if it does, then take another look at impeachment. But what I see right now is that Joe Biden might have given a photo op to people who were paying his son and that Hunter said he might reserve a cut for his dad.. That is not "a high crime or misdemeanor." Smoke, yes. Fire, no.

---

Impeachment wouldn't be on grounds of being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. They're on grounds of lying about his scuzzball son.

Joe said the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was a lie. He also denied ALL involvement where comms show that was also a lie. Whether illegal dealings or not...he lied to the American public over and over again.

Trump was impeached for inquiring about literally what the FBI is investigating. That's a REALLY low bar for justifying impeachment. Lying should easily be justification for impeachment.

---

If lying was the basis for impeachment and conviction, nobody would finish their term of office.

The allegation against Trump was that he used US foreign policy to advance his personal interests. The crux of it was delaying aid to Ukraine. He did delay that aid, there is no dispute about it. His motivations and whether the act of delay is high crime or misdemeanor is up to the people who vote on impeachment and conviction, but at least I know what he did.

Nobody can yet tell me what Biden did.

Still trying to understand the issue here. If anger over getting expensive and cushy jobs post well known political position or relation is the concern, then that line is around the block. Hunter Biden got on the Burisma Board in 2014 while Joe was VP and there was quite a bit going on in and with Ukraine about that time.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I would say the priorities are about the same. It's generally assumed in this forum that the laptop contains evidence of crimes, but it's never been clear what the Bidens are supposed to be guilty of other than making money.

As a country we are fixated on criminal charges because they're an easy way to attack political opponents. It makes for a good game of gotcha. Corruption is more subtle. It's concerning because it tends to make our leaders beholden to foreign interests, but most of it is legal activity. It doesn't make particularly good ammo in a partisan war, especially when both sides are involved in it. Really addressing it would mean protecting the interests of the nation as a nation and not just taking potshots at the other party. I'm not sure there's much interest in that, either among politicians or voters.

---

What's clear based on the emails is that he was grifting by selling access and political influence. Whether any of it is actually illegal, however, remains to be seen. Sleazy behavior is sometimes legal. Of the known trips to China made by Hunter, each one coincided with strategic foreign policy meetings between Vice President Joe Biden and the Chinese government.

He's got a grand jury on him over FARA, but the government rarely charges anyone for FARA violations.

In 2020, the District of Columbia slapped Hunter with a $450,000 lien, stemming from tax delinquencies that stretched back to at least 2017.

He might just get hit with crimes over taxes.

The 51 former Intelligence officials who labelled the laptop "Russian disinformation", sight unseen, are now exposed as propaganda artists. The public, and probably you because you trust the IC, believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was printed, broadcasted to millions and widely accepted as consensus. You have to understand how dangerous that is.

Should Joe's denial of all of this, including calling the laptop Russian disinformation warrant impeachment? He lied to the American people about him and his sons involvement. Whether it was legal or not, he denied the truth.

---

No, I don't think he should be impeached over it.

---

That sends really bad signal to people who support Trump. That he can get impeached for simply inquiring about potential corruption, but Joe can lie to the American people about the topic of that same potential corruption and nothing happens.

This is exactly why people are losing faith in our system. It's quite literally "rules for thee but not for me".

Maybe you can understand the anger and distrust it creates?

---

I didn't think Trump should be impeached the first time either. I try to apply the same standard to both sides, and I think it should be a high one when it comes to impeachment.

I understand the anger over double standards, but the people angry that Trump got impeached and Biden didn't are usually the same ones who think Biden should have been impeached and Trump shouldn't. So how seriously I am I supposed to take them when they have a double standard too?

---

The argument isn't that Trump shouldn't have been impeached, its that the justification for impeachment should also apply to Biden since he's accused of worse and he was caught lying.

You must understand that the precedent set for Trump must now apply to all Presidents. If not, you must concede that there are different standards.

The standards you described don't exist in reality. It's one sided. Don't be surprised if the wheels come off.

---

No one should be impeached for being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. Regardless of what one thinks about the Trump impeachments, they were based on things Trump did. Everything you posted about is what Hunter did.

Maybe that leads to discovery of bad acts by Joe; if it does, then take another look at impeachment. But what I see right now is that Joe Biden might have given a photo op to people who were paying his son and that Hunter said he might reserve a cut for his dad.. That is not "a high crime or misdemeanor." Smoke, yes. Fire, no.

---

Impeachment wouldn't be on grounds of being a bad parent and raising a scuzzball son. They're on grounds of lying about his scuzzball son.

Joe said the laptop was Russian disinformation. That was a lie. He also denied ALL involvement where comms show that was also a lie. Whether illegal dealings or not...he lied to the American public over and over again.

Trump was impeached for inquiring about literally what the FBI is investigating. That's a REALLY low bar for justifying impeachment. Lying should easily be justification for impeachment.

---

If lying was the basis for impeachment and conviction, nobody would finish their term of office.

The allegation against Trump was that he used US foreign policy to advance his personal interests. The crux of it was delaying aid to Ukraine. He did delay that aid, there is no dispute about it. His motivations and whether the act of delay is high crime or misdemeanor is up to the people who vote on impeachment and conviction, but at least I know what he did.

Nobody can yet tell me what Biden did.

---

Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ.

You conceded that Trump was impeached on the basis of potential criminality and THEN they determined if what he did was a crime or misdemeanor.

In Biden's case, you're arguing the reverse, that they need to find a crime or misdemeanor first, and then move to impeachment. I agree with this, but that's not what happened with Trump.

Trump withholding money is less of a criminal accusation than Joe lying and stating he had nothing to do with his son's business dealings, whether they're illegal or not.

UKRAINE: tens of 000s dead, atrocities committed (civilians summarily executed), risk of famine, millions of refugees.@ggreenwald: "But how about Hunter Biden's laptop?"https://t.co/q9tXBOc0aP

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) April 14, 2022

jupiter said:

---

UKRAINE: tens of 000s dead, atrocities committed (civilians summarily executed), risk of famine, millions of refugees.@ggreenwald: "But how about Hunter Biden's laptop?"https://t.co/q9tXBOc0aP

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) April 14, 2022

---

"Everyone agree to WW3 or you're a bigot"