HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

What evidence do you have for that claim?

More to the point, what relevant experience or skills did Hunter BIden bring with him to justify the huge pay he received?

---

Piece on NPR. That means you can discard it automatically. Phew!

---

So, you have opinion not evidence.

The problem is not NPR, it's that you are running your decisions on emotion.

Not a good plan, that.

---

What evidence can you produce that isnt just an opinion?

This evidence seems to support Quash's position:

Quote:

---

But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."

Additionally, the most recent former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Other investigations into Burisma's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, proceeded, and The New York Times reported Sunday that former associates of the vice president have said Biden did not try to stop them.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851

---

Still nothing to indicate Hunter was there to reduce or prevent corruption.

Also, firing the prosecutor before he could investigate Hunter kind of prevents finding the wrongdoing.

And again, you also have failed to show why Hunter was paid so much. What relevant experience or skills did he have for that job?

---

So y'all care about politicians sons getting paid by foreign countries now? I wonder how much Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka got paid for their "work" in places like Panama and Kazakhstan? You know, those projects that are mired in allegations of money laundering? Speaking of, Don Jr told a journalist on the record that they used a lot of Russian money to make Trump Tower SOHO happen, and Eric says Russian money helped them finance purchases of golf clubs, but I guess y'all still don't care about that either...

---

No one cares about any of this stuff. It's all about who can pretend to care the most.

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Epoch Times is one you should look into...

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

Pretty low probability

I believe Hunter was addicted to drugs during this time. He had no experience in oil and gas and had not sat on a corporate board. Is he a lawyer or former prosecutor? Does he speak Ukrainian?

---

That's not any part of the explanation. It was never about his skills or experience.

---

Of course his skills/experience are relevant. If he was paid all that money despite no ability to do the job, the probability that Biden was there to sell access and government influence becomes much higher.

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

What evidence do you have for that claim?

More to the point, what relevant experience or skills did Hunter BIden bring with him to justify the huge pay he received?

---

Piece on NPR. That means you can discard it automatically. Phew!

---

So, you have opinion not evidence.

The problem is not NPR, it's that you are running your decisions on emotion.

Not a good plan, that.

---

What evidence can you produce that isnt just an opinion?

This evidence seems to support Quash's position:

Quote:

---

But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."

Additionally, the most recent former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Other investigations into Burisma's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, proceeded, and The New York Times reported Sunday that former associates of the vice president have said Biden did not try to stop them.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851

---

Still nothing to indicate Hunter was there to reduce or prevent corruption.

Also, firing the prosecutor before he could investigate Hunter kind of prevents finding the wrongdoing.

And again, you also have failed to show why Hunter was paid so much. What relevant experience or skills did he have for that job?

---

So y'all care about politicians sons getting paid by foreign countries now? I wonder how much Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka got paid for their "work" in places like Panama and Kazakhstan? You know, those projects that are mired in allegations of money laundering? Speaking of, Don Jr told a journalist on the record that they used a lot of Russian money to make Trump Tower SOHO happen, and Eric says Russian money helped them finance purchases of golf clubs, but I guess y'all still don't care about that either...

---

No one cares about any of this stuff. It's all about who can pretend to care the most.

---

Man, Nunes and Schiff are proving you right this morning. Couple of clowns.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

Pretty low probability

I believe Hunter was addicted to drugs during this time. He had no experience in oil and gas and had not sat on a corporate board. Is he a lawyer or former prosecutor? Does he speak Ukrainian?

---

That's not any part of the explanation. It was never about his skills or experience.

---

Of course his skills/experience are relevant. If he was paid all that money despite no ability to do the job, the probability that Biden was there to sell access and government influence becomes much higher.

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

---

There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

And significant reason to doubt it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

Pretty low probability

I believe Hunter was addicted to drugs during this time. He had no experience in oil and gas and had not sat on a corporate board. Is he a lawyer or former prosecutor? Does he speak Ukrainian?

---

That's not any part of the explanation. It was never about his skills or experience.

---

Of course his skills/experience are relevant. If he was paid all that money despite no ability to do the job, the probability that Biden was there to sell access and government influence becomes much higher.

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

---

There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

And significant reason to doubt it.

---

OK, if by nothing you mean a report at NPR.

Just a reminder. Obama wore a tan suit.

The official complaint specifically says Zelensky found evidence that Poroshenko's administration worked with the DNC to influence the 2016 election.

It's literally complaining that the truth might come out. This is the FBI's last dying strike to try to prevent a document dump about how the Russiagate hoax originated.

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

What evidence do you have for that claim?

More to the point, what relevant experience or skills did Hunter BIden bring with him to justify the huge pay he received?

---

Piece on NPR. That means you can discard it automatically. Phew!

---

So, you have opinion not evidence.

The problem is not NPR, it's that you are running your decisions on emotion.

Not a good plan, that.

---

What evidence can you produce that isnt just an opinion?

This evidence seems to support Quash's position:

Quote:

---

But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."

Additionally, the most recent former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Other investigations into Burisma's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, proceeded, and The New York Times reported Sunday that former associates of the vice president have said Biden did not try to stop them.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851

---

Still nothing to indicate Hunter was there to reduce or prevent corruption.

Also, firing the prosecutor before he could investigate Hunter kind of prevents finding the wrongdoing.

And again, you also have failed to show why Hunter was paid so much. What relevant experience or skills did he have for that job?

---

So y'all care about politicians sons getting paid by foreign countries now? I wonder how much Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka got paid for their "work" in places like Panama and Kazakhstan? You know, those projects that are mired in allegations of money laundering? Speaking of, Don Jr told a journalist on the record that they used a lot of Russian money to make Trump Tower SOHO happen, and Eric says Russian money helped them finance purchases of golf clubs, but I guess y'all still don't care about that either...

---

I thought you weren't going to use the "childish arguments" of "Republicans also did it." Changed your mind on that?

FACTS:

1. The "whistleblower" complaint is not verified, or submitted under penalty of perjury. It is not based on first hand information. It is entirely, 100% and completely based on unverified information from third parties.

2. The main premise is a lie or at best based on an inability to distinguish "personal" from official interests. POTUS has a duty to root out corruption. There is a prima facie case of corruption by VP Biden. Biden running for office is not a grant of immunity.

3. The July call was routine and proper. The "complaint" is simply another coup plotter seeking to overturn the 2016 election. The whistleblower is not a genuine whistleblower. This person is a mole. POTUS is surrounded by the likes of Brutus and Judas Iscariot.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

Pretty low probability

I believe Hunter was addicted to drugs during this time. He had no experience in oil and gas and had not sat on a corporate board. Is he a lawyer or former prosecutor? Does he speak Ukrainian?

---

That's not any part of the explanation. It was never about his skills or experience.

---

Of course his skills/experience are relevant. If he was paid all that money despite no ability to do the job, the probability that Biden was there to sell access and government influence becomes much higher.

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

---

There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

And significant reason to doubt it.

---

OK, if by nothing you mean a report at NPR.

---

Do you have a link for NPRstory?

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.

---

That's the analogy, and it holds.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy allegedly rapes Sue, Joe allegedly witnesses it, but Sue has no memory of it.

Pretty different scenario.

---

You are better than this.

The woman was drunk at the party, She does not recall it happening. There was an eyewitness who saw it. He does recall it happening.

To say it didn't happen because the woman doesn't remember elevates the memory of the incapacitated person over the one with capacity.

There are all sorts of levels of gray here-how drunk was she; had the eyewitness also been drinking; what do other witnesses remember; what are the witnesses general credibility characteristics; and on and on.

I would be the first to say he couldn't be convicted now, so he shouldn't be charge. I grudgingly say there isn't enough there to deny confirmation. But arguing that the story was a "lie" because the alleged victim does not remember it is just dumb.

---

Who recalls seeing it?

Doc Holliday said:

---

FACTS:

1. The "whistleblower" complaint is not verified, or submitted under penalty of perjury. It is not based on first hand information. It is entirely, 100% and completely based on unverified information from third parties.

2. The main premise is a lie or at best based on an inability to distinguish "personal" from official interests. POTUS has a duty to root out corruption. There is a prima facie case of corruption by VP Biden. Biden running for office is not a grant of immunity.

3. The July call was routine and proper. The "complaint" is simply another coup plotter seeking to overturn the 2016 election. The whistleblower is not a genuine whistleblower. This person is a mole. POTUS is surrounded by the likes of Brutus and Judas Iscariot.

---

#3 is an opinion. Using all caps doesn't change that. At least you supported your opinion.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FACTS:

1. The "whistleblower" complaint is not verified, or submitted under penalty of perjury. It is not based on first hand information. It is entirely, 100% and completely based on unverified information from third parties.

2. The main premise is a lie or at best based on an inability to distinguish "personal" from official interests. POTUS has a duty to root out corruption. There is a prima facie case of corruption by VP Biden. Biden running for office is not a grant of immunity.

3. The July call was routine and proper. The "complaint" is simply another coup plotter seeking to overturn the 2016 election. The whistleblower is not a genuine whistleblower. This person is a mole. POTUS is surrounded by the likes of Brutus and Judas Iscariot.

---

#3 is an opinion. Using all caps doesn't change that. At least you supported your opinion.

---

The call was proper. Read the transcript.

The Inspector General found that the "whistleblower" had political bias and was in favor of a rival candidate.

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.

---

That's the analogy, and it holds.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy allegedly rapes Sue, Joe allegedly witnesses it, but Sue has no memory of it.

Pretty different scenario.

---

You are better than this.

The woman was drunk at the party, She does not recall it happening. There was an eyewitness who saw it. He does recall it happening.

To say it didn't happen because the woman doesn't remember elevates the memory of the incapacitated person over the one with capacity.

There are all sorts of levels of gray here-how drunk was she; had the eyewitness also been drinking; what do other witnesses remember; what are the witnesses general credibility characteristics; and on and on.

I would be the first to say he couldn't be convicted now, so he shouldn't be charge. I grudgingly say there isn't enough there to deny confirmation. But arguing that the story was a "lie" because the alleged victim does not remember it is just dumb.

---

Who recalls seeing it?

---

Max Stier and maybe others. But since the FBI could not investigate we don't know about the others yet.

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

What evidence do you have for that claim?

More to the point, what relevant experience or skills did Hunter BIden bring with him to justify the huge pay he received?

---

Piece on NPR. That means you can discard it automatically. Phew!

---

So, you have opinion not evidence.

The problem is not NPR, it's that you are running your decisions on emotion.

Not a good plan, that.

---

What evidence can you produce that isnt just an opinion?

This evidence seems to support Quash's position:

Quote:

---

But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."

Additionally, the most recent former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Other investigations into Burisma's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, proceeded, and The New York Times reported Sunday that former associates of the vice president have said Biden did not try to stop them.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851

---

Still nothing to indicate Hunter was there to reduce or prevent corruption.

Also, firing the prosecutor before he could investigate Hunter kind of prevents finding the wrongdoing.

And again, you also have failed to show why Hunter was paid so much. What relevant experience or skills did he have for that job?

---

So y'all care about politicians sons getting paid by foreign countries now? I wonder how much Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka got paid for their "work" in places like Panama and Kazakhstan? You know, those projects that are mired in allegations of money laundering? Speaking of, Don Jr told a journalist on the record that they used a lot of Russian money to make Trump Tower SOHO happen, and Eric says Russian money helped them finance purchases of golf clubs, but I guess y'all still don't care about that either...

---

I thought you weren't going to use the "childish arguments" of "Republicans also did it." Changed your mind on that?

---

Either way, your "both sides"ism deflection isn't really holding up to scrutiny:

Quote:

---

But there's little evidence he acted to help his son: Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to "support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind."

Additionally, the most recent former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Other investigations into Burisma's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, proceeded, and The New York Times reported Sunday that former associates of the vice president have said Biden did not try to stop them.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851

We have a sitting President who doesn't give a rip what anyone thinks. I've accused him of being narcistic or Mob or both.

We have a House that is determined to vilify anything in their way of pick pocketing the individual tax payer.

We have a SCOTUS that is devoted to party rather than the Constitution.

Somehow we power on. Meanwhile the Chinese are making a mockery of our public education system.

But in the end life is good and we will carry on.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FACTS:

1. The "whistleblower" complaint is not verified, or submitted under penalty of perjury. It is not based on first hand information. It is entirely, 100% and completely based on unverified information from third parties.

2. The main premise is a lie or at best based on an inability to distinguish "personal" from official interests. POTUS has a duty to root out corruption. There is a prima facie case of corruption by VP Biden. Biden running for office is not a grant of immunity.

3. The July call was routine and proper. The "complaint" is simply another coup plotter seeking to overturn the 2016 election. The whistleblower is not a genuine whistleblower. This person is a mole. POTUS is surrounded by the likes of Brutus and Judas Iscariot.

---

#3 is an opinion. Using all caps doesn't change that. At least you supported your opinion.

---

The call was proper. Read the transcript.

The Inspector General found that the "whistleblower" had political bias and was in favor of a rival candidate.

---

That is a fact. #3 is your opinion.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

We have a sitting President who doesn't give a rip what anyone thinks. I've accused him of being narcistic or Mob or both.

We have a House that is determined to vilify anything in their way of pick pocketing the individual tax payer.

We have a SCOTUS that is devoted to party rather than the Constitution.

Somehow we power on. Meanwhile the Chinese are making a mockery of our public education system.

But in the end life is good and we will carry on.

---

I've said something similar: journalism has been corroded by the drive for eyeballs. Congress has ceded too much power to the executive. Trump, by himself, is corrosive to many of our civic institutions.

I still think those institutions are strong enough to withstand the damage.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FACTS:

1. The "whistleblower" complaint is not verified, or submitted under penalty of perjury. It is not based on first hand information. It is entirely, 100% and completely based on unverified information from third parties.

2. The main premise is a lie or at best based on an inability to distinguish "personal" from official interests. POTUS has a duty to root out corruption. There is a prima facie case of corruption by VP Biden. Biden running for office is not a grant of immunity.

3. The July call was routine and proper. The "complaint" is simply another coup plotter seeking to overturn the 2016 election. The whistleblower is not a genuine whistleblower. This person is a mole. POTUS is surrounded by the likes of Brutus and Judas Iscariot.

---

#3 is an opinion. Using all caps doesn't change that. At least you supported your opinion.

---

The call was proper. Read the transcript.

The Inspector General found that the "whistleblower" had political bias and was in favor of a rival candidate.

---

That is a fact. #3 is your opinion.

---

You really can't see this is a Democrat/Media operation?

How gullible are you?

As if you didn't learn from the Russian collusion hoax, the Kavanagh Hoax, the Avenatti Hoax, the Stormy Hoax and all the other failed hits and attacks.

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.

---

That's the analogy, and it holds.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy allegedly rapes Sue, Joe allegedly witnesses it, but Sue has no memory of it.

Pretty different scenario.

---

You are better than this.

The woman was drunk at the party, She does not recall it happening. There was an eyewitness who saw it. He does recall it happening.

To say it didn't happen because the woman doesn't remember elevates the memory of the incapacitated person over the one with capacity.

There are all sorts of levels of gray here-how drunk was she; had the eyewitness also been drinking; what do other witnesses remember; what are the witnesses general credibility characteristics; and on and on.

I would be the first to say he couldn't be convicted now, so he shouldn't be charge. I grudgingly say there isn't enough there to deny confirmation. But arguing that the story was a "lie" because the alleged victim does not remember it is just dumb.

---

Who recalls seeing it?

---

Max Stier and maybe others. But since the FBI could not investigate we don't know about the others yet.

---

I thought you were referring to Blasey-Ford.

Honestly, I don't care about the Ramirez story...or anything else anyone did in college. It was different back then when compared to this ultra-sensitive, looking-to-be-offended society of today. For information on today's society see the Des Moines Register.

Can ya'll read?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can ya'll read?

---

Can you? That paragraph is pretty damning. Multiple corroborating witnesses giving consistent accounts, media reports consistent with fact patterns he knew weren't public...

So asking a foreign government to investigate a crime is illegal? If indeed that is what the Dems are upset about...is asking them about interference in the 2016 election impeachable as well?

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.

---

That's the analogy, and it holds.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy allegedly rapes Sue, Joe allegedly witnesses it, but Sue has no memory of it.

Pretty different scenario.

---

You are better than this.

The woman was drunk at the party, She does not recall it happening. There was an eyewitness who saw it. He does recall it happening.

To say it didn't happen because the woman doesn't remember elevates the memory of the incapacitated person over the one with capacity.

There are all sorts of levels of gray here-how drunk was she; had the eyewitness also been drinking; what do other witnesses remember; what are the witnesses general credibility characteristics; and on and on.

I would be the first to say he couldn't be convicted now, so he shouldn't be charge. I grudgingly say there isn't enough there to deny confirmation. But arguing that the story was a "lie" because the alleged victim does not remember it is just dumb.

---

Who recalls seeing it?

---

Max Stier and maybe others. But since the FBI could not investigate we don't know about the others yet.

---

I thought you were referring to Blasey-Ford.

Honestly, I don't care about the Ramirez story...or anything else anyone did in college. It was different back then when compared to this ultra-sensitive, looking-to-be-offended society of today. For information on today's society see the Des Moines Register.

---

This one is neither Blasey-ford nor Ramirez. It is another Yale party (allegedly). What is most disturbing about the allegations in the book is the whitewash nature of the investigation and the possibility that Justice Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can ya'll read?

---

Can you? That paragraph is pretty damning. Multiple corroborating witnesses giving consistent accounts, media reports consistent with fact patterns he knew weren't public...

---

That paragraph is damning for you and Democrats.

This is why Adam Schiff is quoting parody accounts of the transcript instead of the actual transcript. You know, the same idiot who tried to get nudes of Trump from Ukraine.

And here's fake news fails:

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can ya'll read?

---

Can you? That paragraph is pretty damning. Multiple corroborating witnesses giving consistent accounts, media reports consistent with fact patterns he knew weren't public...

---

That paragraph is damning for you and Democrats.

This is why Adam Schiff is quoting parody accounts of the transcript instead of the actual transcript. You know, the same idiot who tried to get nudes of Trump from Ukraine.

---

Yup, somebody here certainly is an idiot...

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.

---

That's the analogy, and it holds.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy allegedly rapes Sue, Joe allegedly witnesses it, but Sue has no memory of it.

Pretty different scenario.

---

You are better than this.

The woman was drunk at the party, She does not recall it happening. There was an eyewitness who saw it. He does recall it happening.

To say it didn't happen because the woman doesn't remember elevates the memory of the incapacitated person over the one with capacity.

There are all sorts of levels of gray here-how drunk was she; had the eyewitness also been drinking; what do other witnesses remember; what are the witnesses general credibility characteristics; and on and on.

I would be the first to say he couldn't be convicted now, so he shouldn't be charge. I grudgingly say there isn't enough there to deny confirmation. But arguing that the story was a "lie" because the alleged victim does not remember it is just dumb.

---

Who recalls seeing it?

---

Max Stier and maybe others. But since the FBI could not investigate we don't know about the others yet.

---

I thought you were referring to Blasey-Ford.

Honestly, I don't care about the Ramirez story...or anything else anyone did in college. It was different back then when compared to this ultra-sensitive, looking-to-be-offended society of today. For information on today's society see the Des Moines Register.

---

This one is neither Blasey-ford nor Ramirez. It is another Yale party (allegedly). What is most disturbing about the allegations in the book is the whitewash nature of the investigation and the possibility that Justice Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.

---

well..
1. None of it should be brought up anyway. Rather than look at what someone did in high school or college, someone's behavior on the bench should be considered. Kavanaugh's reputation was impeccable...espcially with the women he had hired
2. Steir was a Clinton defense attorney and in light of that, his testimony would be tainted.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FACTS:

1. The "whistleblower" complaint is not verified, or submitted under penalty of perjury. It is not based on first hand information. It is entirely, 100% and completely based on unverified information from third parties.

2. The main premise is a lie or at best based on an inability to distinguish "personal" from official interests. POTUS has a duty to root out corruption. There is a prima facie case of corruption by VP Biden. Biden running for office is not a grant of immunity.

3. The July call was routine and proper. The "complaint" is simply another coup plotter seeking to overturn the 2016 election. The whistleblower is not a genuine whistleblower. This person is a mole. POTUS is surrounded by the likes of Brutus and Judas Iscariot.

---

#3 is an opinion. Using all caps doesn't change that. At least you supported your opinion.

---

The call was proper. Read the transcript.

The Inspector General found that the "whistleblower" had political bias and was in favor of a rival candidate.

---

That is a fact. #3 is your opinion.

---

You really can't see this is a Democrat/Media operation?

How gullible are you?

As if you didn't learn from the Russian collusion hoax, the Kavanagh Hoax, the Avenatti Hoax, the Stormy Hoax and all the other failed hits and attacks.

---

I'm not offering an opinion on that. I'm trying to separate opinion from fact, because you won't.

quash said:

---

I'm not offering an opinion on that. I'm trying to separate opinion from fact, because you won't.

---

It's always a good laugh to see quash pretend to be impartial.

BaylorBJM said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

This needs to be quoted and read on every page if this thread.

The mental gymnastics some of you do on a daily basis is astonishing.

---

"POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story."


As ever, this argument by assertion remains unconvincing. This statement seems to say that members of the opposing party cannot be investigated because they are members of the opposing party. Well.... what if they are f...ing criminals? Please explain it in a way that even we simpletons can understand. Thank you.

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

This needs to be quoted and read on every page if this thread.

The mental gymnastics some of you do on a daily basis is astonishing.

---

"POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story."


As ever, this argument by assertion remains unconvincing. This statement seems to say that members of the opposing party cannot be investigated because they are members of the opposing party. Well.... what if they are f...ing criminals? Please explain it in a way that even we simpletons can understand. Thank you.

---

They can be investigated.

Should another country be extorted into doing oppo research for a candidate, using public funds?

Schiff is an absolute moron and a serial liar. In a hearing where they wanted transparency and facts released bout the President, Full of Schiff reads fake dialogue? WTH?

What a waste of time when there is so much else to be done by Congress, obviously Dems don't care.