quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

I'm not saying the story was a lie. That's someone else's argument. But we don't know that the woman was drunk. Assuming the NYT excerpt is accurate, we only know she was present at what was described as a drunken party. As you mentioned, we don't know any gray areas. If she was drunk, how drunk was she? How drunk was the witness? Your analogy assumes she was incapacitated by a roofie to the point of blacking out, but it makes no such assumption regarding the witness. In fact it doesn't even assume he was drinking at all.

You're better than this.

---

You are supporting that argument.

The poster who called the piece a lie did so solely because the victim did not remember the event.

I used the analogy to demonstrate how her failure to recall what happened did not make the opinion piece a lie. The analogy plainly demonstrates a scenario in which a rape story can be true without the victim's recollection; that was its purpose.

Its not an argument that the described event happened; if it was, it would not be an analogy.

We agree that the evidence is so hazy that it should not be used to prosecute or prevent confirmation. In fact, the authors of the book say the same thing. The point of the story was that it was supported by a credible witness yet it was not investigated after it came to light. That the idea the FBI did not find any additional evidence of sexual assaults by Justice Kavanaugh is a complete myth, because the FBI refused to look forward them even when witnesses were trying their hardest to tell their story. That it was so important to get him on the bench, we ignored credible evidence of disqualifying acts.

I am conflicted on the investigation. It should never come up so late in the process and it is hard to see how one could ever decide what actually happened at a drunken party 30 years ago. But at the same time, the refusal to even look for facts when a lifetime SCOTUS appointment is at stake is pretty horrifying.

But all of that is pretty far afield. The story wasn't a lie. Not even close..

---

I understand that we're talking about an analogy. My point is that you constructed an analogy in which the victim's failure to remember is completely immaterial. That isn't the actual case, which is why it matters that the NYT failed to report it. Even if it doesn't make the whole story a lie, it is at best irresponsible and part of a pattern of irresponsibility in mainstream media's reporting on Trump.

---

Are you going to address booray's point that the article was about the failure to investigate, or just keep harping on the analogy?

---

I don't know yet. Depends on how long it takes to establish the simple point about the analogy.

There was no "failure to investigate", that has already been made clear. Six FBI investigations were made on Kavanaugh, well beyond any reasonable standard. You are simply upset that you could not force a seventh, just out of spite.

If you think this last one was really valid, perhaps you should have led with it, all those months when the FBI was doing the normal work. You tried to play 'gotcha', lost, and - like the election - cannot accept reality.

No quid pro quo? Then what does this mean: "...the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine." #reciprocal

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

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

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

Why do you need evidence of that?
Watching Republicans trying to positively spend this memo is both hilarious and sad. You wanted President Obama run out of office for telling Medvedev he'd have more flexibility to negotiate after his reelection, and yet after seeing Trump's scrubbed version of one call with the Ukrainian president wherein he asks him to work with Barr and Guliaini to get dirt on his potential opponent, you shrug your shoulders. You can stay dug in but things will just get worse for Trump as more is known.

Just tonight it's being reported that the whistleblower complaint contains the names of White House officials who observed Trump's abuse of power. If that is true, there's no way they will lie during an impeachment inquiry just to save Trump. It's hard to believe that these two Trump appointees, upon receipt of the whistleblower's complaint, made a criminal referral to the DOJ and AG Barr rebuffed them.

Trump has always run up the tab and has never had to pay the check. Until now.

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 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?

---

Both organizations have knowingly published false information about the POTUS knowing full well ...in advance....that their 'sources' were either unsubstantiated or completely false .

That is unethical.

As much as I dislike Trumps personality.....I detest far more the daily lies published about him.

Our media is completely out of control .

---

Example please?

---

Ok.

NYT example. The NY Time ran a story originally identifying Manafort sharing information with "Russian" associates when in actuality they were Ukrainian. While you may off hand say not big difference, a news organization "ethically" is held to a higher standard to be able to correctly identify the nationally of individuals especially in the context of the "Russian Collusion" investigation that was going on in this country during that time frame.

For example, literally is it "ethical" to write a published news article stating a person is a United States citizen when you know they are Mexican or Canadian?

Correction: Jan. 9, 2019
"A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin"

The individuals didn't even have similar names so how was this a mistake? Note the "Close to the Kremlin" tie to Mr. Deripaska.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html

WP Example. Covington High School Students

If you are "ethically" publishing accounts with video evidence why would you have to materially edit changes to what was originally reported?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/01/editors-note-related-lincoln-memorial-incident/
"either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that story including that Native American activist Nathan Phillips was prevented by one student from moving on, that his group had been taunted by the students in the lead-up to the encounter, and that the students were trying to instigate a conflict. "

A Jan. 22 correction to the original story reads: Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips said he served in the U.S. Marines but was never deployed to Vietnam.

You may argue that "accounts" are just that and the Post was accurate in what it initially reported? But couldn't one argue that the "ethical" responsibility of a news organization is to dig a bit deeper and try to verify information from multiple sources especially if there is video evidence of the event?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/diocese-reverses-course-clears-covington-catholic-high-school-students-of-wrongdoing-after-investigation-of-viral-incident-on-mall/2019/02/13/c11195f8-2fa7-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.8920f25c07e1&tid=a_inl_manual

Now that you are aware of these two items do you still stand by there is "no evidence" that could possibly support a claim of "unethical" behavior by the NYT or WP? or do you want to debate the term "unethical" or debate "they didn't know at the time" etc. ?

You have admitted a opinion of basis. Which in your opinion is more likely?... The National newspapers are "unethical" or "incompetent"? I am of the opinion that they are more "unethical" in that they select the facts that support a position and omit facts that support the opposite position.

Booray said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday 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.

---

Thats not the argument.

We're not saying she's lying. We're calling out NYT for running this hit piece when they know the assertions aren't provable.

Millions of morons read the headline and believe Kavanagh is a drunken rapist.

It is unethical.

---

You obviously did not read the article or the book and have zero understanding about the context. The criticism is about the failure to investigate. There was a credible accusation of sexual assault. The GOP refused to investigate it because it was so important to put Brett Kavanaugh on the bench. That is the story and it is no lie.

Doesn't mean he is guilty or should not be on the bench. It does mean the GOP and you don't give a rat''s ass about morals.

---

Sorry, don't buy it. Brett Kavanaugh was nominated several months prior to his hearing. Yet, not a single accusation was brought to life until after the committee completed its work. Then, right before the vote . . . boom. Nothing about these accusations are credible.

Kavanaugh had been through 6 FBI investigations yet not a single one of those ever found an sexual assault.

There was nothing more to investigate except the persons bringing the false accusations.

---

How many times was Bernie Madoff audited?

I agree that the timing of all this made things impossible. But I am pretty sure the FBI could have spoken to some of the 20 people around the Deborah Ramirez story or the eyewitness on this one.

When a plausible accusation comes forward you investigate it. Doesn't seem that difficult of a concept to me.

---

It wasn't plausible. Therein lies your problem.

You know that little white top on chicken ***** Well it is chicken **** too.

#Dems2020

I swear it's like the dems are trying to get Trump re-elected. It is mind blowing. They are pushing soooo many people to defend or support Trump who otherwise wouldn't . . . just because the lunacy on the left is so incredibly annoying and off-putting. I can't even imagine a more screwed up effort if someone was actively trying to eff it up.

Hurry whistle blower !!

Sad to see the denial and deflection from Trump supporters.

If Obama had done anything like this, we would be peeling you off the ceiling.

It's only going to get worse for you from here.

It is a complete alt universe on sicem. Republicans on Capitol Hill are starting to get anxious just over the content of summary of the phone call the WH itself released. (The WH version of the call). It could be panic after the head of DNI testifies today and after the whistleblower's complaint drops.

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.

PartyBear said:

---

It is a complete alt universe on sicem. Republicans on Capitol Hill are starting to get anxious just over the content of summary of the phone call the WH itself released. (The WH version of the call). It could be panic after the head of DNI testifies today and after the whistleblower's complaint drops.

---

Let's see what he says

George Truett said:

---

If Obama had done anything like this...

---

Which, of course, he did.

The whistle blower's memo

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1852-whistle-blower-complaint/aa829cd2144dc186abde/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

George Truett said:

---

Sad to see the denial and deflection from Trump supporters.

If Obama had done anything like this, we would be peeling you off the ceiling.

It's only going to get worse for you from here.

---

Theres no need for deflection.

This is ANOTHER failed attempt to take down POTUS.

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.

---

To me this is like a ref calling a foul or penalty on the last play of the game...some people say it shouldn't done. Others say, if it's a foul/penalty, then it should be called regardless.

If we're not going to investigate wrongs committed by previous government officials, regardless of the timing, then said government officials need to make sure that they do their wrong doing right before the leave office or right before they run for office.

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

You are hereby ordered to vacate the speakership.

Defend me patriots!

and don't we all expect Trump to be investigated after he leaves office? You know it will happen.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, the NYT ..."

FIFY

---

In other words books written by libtards

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

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.

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

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?

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!

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.

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

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.

---

I didn't say it was an opionion piece.

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?

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?

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.

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...

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.

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...

---

Was Donald Trump in elected office when Ivanka and Eric made their foreign money?

If not, then they made their money through competence and ability. Hunter never demonstrated those qualities.