Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Board of a Ukraine gas Company?

You want to compare 401k stories? How about this one. I worked for a relatively new Fortune 500 company after my division was spun off from a well know Fortune 500 company. We were the bell of the ball for a while and we all thought we would be retiring millionaires. I knew absolutely nothing about investing and the stock market so I broke the first rule of investing, diversify. I went 100% in my company stock and man was it paying off. Up to 120 a share and split. Back to 100 and split and again and again, I kept making an obscene amount of money. One day my 401k went up $30,000 in one freakin day!


Well, as the saying goes, all good things come to an end. At a high of about $800,000 things took a turn. Everybody said don't worry about it, let it ride, it will come back but it didn't. I'm embarrassed to admit how much I lost, lets just say most of it. The thing is, all that time it was going down and obviously not coming back, I just sat and watched and all I had to do was pick up the phone and tell them put the remainder of my money in a guaranteed interest like a CD but I didn't, I just kept watching it drop thinking it couldn't all disappear, that couldn't be possible but it was. It did manage to make a little come back but not a whole helluva lot.


The good news is, it was a very good paying job and I managed to save a bunch because the company was giving me stock and matching what I put in which truthfully wasn't all that much. I'll bet I didn't but more than $20,000 or so of my own money. More good news is that I retired with a nice pension, my savings over the years and now that I'm collecting SS on top of that, I ain't doing to bad for having lost a small fortune. I retired at 57.



Since I was in a union my entire career, a story for another day, I tended to vote Democrat until my eyes were opened and then 3rd party, Libertarian, anything but a Democrat or a Republican. Hell, I voted for Ross Perot!!!! Mitt Romney was the first Republican I voted for but I'm not a registered Republican so here in Florida, I can't vote in the Republican primary, I'm a registered Independent but obviously I lean right now. Trump was not my 1st or second choice for the Republican nomination but as we all know, my choice came down to Hillary or Trump since Johnson and Stein weren't even up for consideration. I didn't and still don't like Trump's personality. I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with the guy but policy wise I pretty much agree with him down the line. I wish there was some other Republican I could replace him with but there isn't and I won't be voting for any of these Democrats especially the Communist Sanders and the bat shit crazy Warren. Biden is a joke and and the rest of the field has to many problems to even get into. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

lol. No I don't want to compare 401k stories with everyone, although I find your story very interesting. I only talked about my 401k as to to why I voted for Obama over McCain/Palin. I was a single-issue voter in 2008 and I looked at Obama as being the better choice to restore the economy. Plus, I could never vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it.

You say the ICIG "had a duty to tell us he thought the whistleblower just might have a bias in his complaint . . . ."

If he didn't have a bias, would the complaint be more credible?

It's going to be a bit of a pain in the ass to bring up the issues again. I should be getting a laptop soon, the portability of my tablet now makes it easy to play around with. Not so much write and edit. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

To me, that is self evident and it is the point of wanting to cross examine the WB. What if after a through investigation we found out that a conspiracy was indeed hatched and Lt. Colonel Vindman plotted with the WB who at this point we know got the information from LCV? Would it change anything that was said in the phone call which has different interpretations depending on one's view or bias? No, I suppose not but just like it would be beneficial to know who leakers of classified information are, it would be beneficial ( at least to me ) to know if LCV plotted with the WB and Schiff and if any laws were broken in that endeavor.


I think I see the point you were after, would any bias change what was said on the phone call. No but his bias would certainly open up additional avenues to investigate especially from my point of view if it hung Schiff out to dry. Oh how I would love that! I would pay good money to see that.


This all reminds me of the Peter Strzok case. Did his obvious bias mean he could be fair in doing his duty as an FBI investigator to be impartial? Hell no he couldn't IMHO but Horowitz didn't see it that way so that's that. I think bias must be looked at even if it doesn't change the words that were said in the phone call.


That may have been a bit unfair of me to ignore your questions in post 171 and since I have bragged that I never run from a question, I'll take a sot at answering the rest of your questions.
I'll put your questions in blue since I'm writing in Black.


Is this a court of law? Or the court of "public opinion"? The legislature and judiciary are separate.



I judge all matters as if they were in a court of law. It's kinda my thing.



This I guess, is partially why I avoided post 171. These weren't questions but comments and I guess if I'm being honest and I always try to be, I was just a tiny bit insulted as if I was being "schooled" but you were probably just making an honest observation from your point of view.


The DOJ legal council is under the control of Bill Barr . . .

Control is a strong word. I do not think that Barr hand picked these attorneys because they think like him. I may be naive in this but I don't think these attorneys who are career people much like the Ambassadors we are hearing so much about who I think take their legal acumen seriously and don't bend to the will of the boss to keep their job because I don't think they can be fired without proof of misconduct and there for feel free to give their honest opinion like a SC Justice would. Again, I could be naive in this but I don't think so.

who is under the control of the POTUS.

Same argument. I have a close friend who is a Democrat and he constantly makes the same case to me. "Barr is Trumps puppet and will do exactly as he is told". I don't believe that. I think Barr saw and viewed the evidence just like I did and I'm certainly not under the control of Trump. I think there is evidence that Trump was set up from the get go from people in Intelligence, John Brennan at the CIA. Comey, McCabe and Strzok at the FBI. Nellie and Bruce Ohr at DOJ. Remember the video of Chuck Shumer being interviewed and he commented that Trump should be very careful about disparaging members of the Intelligence community because they have "6 ways from Sunday at getting back at you", was prophetic. I think that is exactly what happened. I think Brennan put all this in motion with setting up Papadopolous using other Western Intelligence operatives ( Mifsud ) which is why this was all started outside the country with P in the UK. I admit I could be wrong about all this but this is what I believe and I think John Durham if not Horowitz will shed light on all this before this is all said and done.

I agree with you here. But do you mean the Judiciary Committee or Judiciary Branch?

Committee, where at least the last two if not all three Impeachment inquiries took place I think. I think Pelosi gave it to Schiff and the Intelligence committee because Nadler blew the Mueller hearings so bad and I think the rules would have been more favorable to Trump in the Judiciary Committee.



As soon as the DNI agreed it was a simple quid pro quo/bribe/extortion, it should have gone to Nadler. The Democrats wasted all that time, just getting closer to the election, for a simple strong arm twist.

I agree



How does it serve the interest of national security for the POTUS to get opposition research for personal gain?

I'll answer your question with a question. Wouldn't it serve the interest of national security to know if the possible nominee of the Democratic party was involved in a corrupt scheme to have his son benefit by shutting down any investigation into his son and the corrupt company he worked for? Wouldn't you agree that beyond any personal gain, the country could gain from such information? Isn't that why Trump was investigated to benefit the Democratic party and possibly the country?


To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.

I'm really getting tired of this since any fair minded observer of politics "should" understand that it should other wise bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors would not be spelled out in the Constitution. All those are crimes. If we go down the road of "anything a President does can lead to his impeachment, where does that lead? Right now, the Democrats seemed to have settled on bribery being their number one count, a legal term for which a legal argument must be made if it comes to a trial in the Senate. Could the House only send one article of impeachment, abuse of power and not specify a law that was broken? I don't think so.


It's about public trust. Do you trust this POTUS with the football?

As much as I trust any human with that kind of power. Trump is a lot of things but psychotic? No, I don't think so. I think he loves his family ( maybe Ivanka a little to much ) and he enjoys living unlike some Iranian Mullahs.


Not fully embracing the opinions of the NSC IMHO does not lead me to believe Trump is more likely to blow up the world but that's just my opinion.

As to my comment


Why wait for the Senate to debate the legal merits of the case?


And your answer ( again not a question )

It isn't a legal matter.

In my opinion everything is a legal matter or it isn't worth discussing in the context of impeachment.



The Senate doesn't determine what's legal. It will only determine what is ethical, proper and trustworthy.

I disagree. The fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme oversees the trial should put that argument to bed.



If you, and the Senate believe what he did, and you know who he is, is unethical, improper and untrustworthy, then the country will be in a better place for having removed him.

If I haven't made my opinion clear and I think I have, not without a crime.


I say, execute him. THIS, OF COURSE, IS JUST AN OPINION OF MINE.

And in this great country, you are untitled to say that in public and not get arrested


Hiring illegal citizens is not uncommon

There's not uncommon and not caught and there's not uncommon and caught and we know what happens when one is caught hiring illegals to work on a campaign. My point was always that it may not be illegal to hire a foreign national ( I was never discussing illegals ) but it is certainly illegal to use a foreign national to get information on an opponent in an election. That is not my opinion but the opinion of literally every legal expert in the field of Federal Election law. What isn't universally agreed to, is that what Don Jr, Hillary and Trump did.


And that is why I avoided post 171 in the first place. Know how long it took me to do this?

Again, excellent points. I'd like to address one of them.

How does it serve the interest of national security for the POTUS to get opposition research for personal gain?

I'll answer your question with a question. Wouldn't it serve the interest of national security to know if the possible nominee of the Democratic party was involved in a corrupt scheme to have his son benefit by shutting down any investigation into his son and the corrupt company he worked for? Wouldn't you agree that beyond any personal gain, the country could gain from such information? Isn't that why Trump was investigated to benefit the Democratic party and possibly the country?

As mentioned before, why did Trump wait almost 3 years after taking office to show an interest in Joe Biden possibly engaging in a corrupt scheme to benefit his son? With Joe Biden leading the Democratic contenders to face him next November. I sincerely doubt Trump would have asked for the investigation had Biden not been a possible candidate next November.

Then, since supposedly Trump has such a strong relationship with Volodymyr Zelensky, and with the Ukraine desperate to keep the U.S. as a close ally, why didn't Trump ask Zelensky to investigate the Bidens without withholding financial aid?

Finally some respectful debate.

Congrats you two.



.

Agreed wtf.



SR - a delay in addressing the Biden's conduct , if there was a delay, does not excuse the conduct.

When did the allegations first come to light ( despite lsm media attempts to hush it up) , and it takes some time to work through to be addressed.

There are statutes against the criminal behavior of the biden's - an open investigation is indicated.



"3 years" does not excuse criminal behavior Joe biden admitted to on open recorded forum, and the DPST's promptly, when it came to the forefront of the media- launched an anti- Trump campaign based on flimsy evidence of exactly that conduct.



Cannot have it both ways, SR - I think that argument lacks validity.

Bottom line - the LSM has ginned up a whole cottage industry about Ukraine - the phone transcript was released - why do Pelosi and Schiff not go ahead and put it on Articles of Impeachment and forward to the Senate for an open, non-[artisan trial - unlike the hyper-partisan Schiff show he has run as a House committee chair given hall monitor status.

When did the allegations first come to light ( despite lsm media attempts to hush it up) , and it takes some time to work through to be addressed.

There are statutes against the criminal behavior of the biden's - an open investigation is indicated.



"3 years" does not excuse criminal behavior Joe biden admitted to on open recorded forum, and the DPST's promptly, when it came to the forefront of the media- launched an anti- Trump campaign based on flimsy evidence of exactly that conduct.



. Originally Posted by oeb11

Two things.

1)The media did not attempt to hush it.

2) Biden admitted no wrong doing....it fact quite the opposite.

The timelines and facts are not in your favor.

Should Hunter Biden taken the Board seat. Probably not but there is nothing legally Biden Sr could do about it. And nothing so far suggested Biden Sr helped him get the seat on the board or that he did anything to protect H Biden .

Trump only became interested in this after Biden SR put his hat in the ring.

Disagree with # 1 and 2.

and 3 and 4.

Cannot speak to timeline of Trump's interest.

The whole Biden affair reeks of corruption.


DPST hypocritically accuse Trump of Biden's admitted conduct.

Both deserve a non-partisan investigation - which what the LSM and Schiff are definitely Not capable of.

Again, excellent points. I'd like to address one of them.


As mentioned before, why did Trump wait almost 3 years after taking office to show an interest in Joe Biden possibly engaging in a corrupt scheme to benefit his son? With Joe Biden leading the Democratic contenders to face him next November. I sincerely doubt Trump would have asked for the investigation had Biden not been a possible candidate next November.

Then, since supposedly Trump has such a strong relationship with Volodymyr Zelensky, and with the Ukraine desperate to keep the U.S. as a close ally, why didn't Trump ask Zelensky to investigate the Bidens without withholding financial aid? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Perhaps Civilian Joe Biden did not pose a threat to national security the way a President Joe Biden might? Of course all of this is speculation which is why I try and concentrate on the law. Did the President break any law by asking Zelensky to look into possible corruption at Burisma which might be tied in some way to Hunter and Joe Biden? Some say yes using the very same argument I have presented to you that under Federal election law NO ONE may ask a foreign national for information ( something of value ) on an opponent in an upcoming election. Apparently you still don't by that argument for reasons I don't understand or maybe just not in the case of Hillary? That is the law Democrats say Trump broke putting aside the whole argument about aide.


I say there are extenuating circumstances, the treaty that requires our President to ensure corruption is being dealt with no matter who it involves before he releases funds, that puts the President above this law. I'm no attorney but I hear other attorneys making this very argument. While the time line could be used against Trump, in a court of law,the argument I just made would be considered an alternative theory and perhaps create the needed "reasonable doubt" necessary to get Trump off the hook in a court of law. If there are two competing theories, that raises reasonable doubt, well, to some, not so much others.



As to withholding foreign aide. Again, was it legal or not? Same exact argument. What I find utterly ridiculous is the notion that this holding up of aide for 55 days put the national security of Ukraine and our national security at risk. Hyperbole at best. Ukraine was not out of weapons and still had Javelins that everybody seems to agree was one of the things holding Putin back from all out attack. Did the hold on aide "signal" Putin that our interest in Ukraine was fading? Maybe for 55 days it did which again, he did nothing about. At the end of 55 days, Putin had his answer. No harm, no foul, well, to some.

like hellary. joe biden's net worth took a sudden jump , especially during the Obama admin and thereafter

while a piker compared to hellary, he figured it out for himself somehow


Per an August 2019 article in Politico:


The day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Advisors was a memorable one.
In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s younger brother, James, purchased the firm. On their first day on the job, they showed up with Joe’s other son, Beau, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund’s chief of compliance to fire its president, according to a Paradigm executive who was present.



After the firing, the two large men escorted the fund’s president out of the firm’s midtown Manhattan office, and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund’s future. “Don’t worry about investors,” he said, according to the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation. “We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.”

At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid. According to the executive, James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We've got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

Biden refers to himself as “Middle-Class Joe,” and presents himself as a corrective to a system rigged by financiers and networked corporate elites.

At this, the executive recalled, Beau Biden, who was then running for attorney general of Delaware, turned bright red. He told his uncle, “This can never leave this room, and if you ever say it again, I will have nothing to do with this.”

and of course john Kerry's son and hunter biden's firm received a 130 million dollar loan from the u.s. government
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...e-biden-was-vp

Two things.

1)The media did not attempt to hush it.

Since I watch mostly Fox news, I asked around to those who I know watch CNN and MSNBC and asked them if either network had shown the video of Joe Biden demanding a quid pro quo IMHO. Nobody had seen it. Did you see it played?


2) Biden admitted no wrong doing....it fact quite the opposite.



Of course he admitted no wrong doing and that was enough for you? The MSM keep repeating ad nauseam, that there was no proof, well, isn't that what an investigation is for? When Trump said there was no proof he colluded with Russia, was there still an investigation? And an investigation can't be done without involving Ukraine IMHO.


The timelines and facts are not in your favor.



I'm not convinced that timelines have anything to do with the issue as I explained in my other post. Were Trumps actions legal. That is all I and many others care about. I understand others don't share that view because they think the House can impeach for any reason they want. They can but they shouldn't because it just brings the whole partisan point into question. Prove a legal case and you just might get the Republicans they need.


Should Hunter Biden taken the Board seat. Probably not but there is nothing legally Biden Sr could do about it.



He could have told his son what Obama and every single living person in and out of government was thinking, "it had the appearance of impropriety" which can mean big problems for politicians. What Daddy told him according to Hunter was "I hope you know what you are doing". Apparently he didn't.


And nothing so far suggested Biden Sr helped him get the seat on the board or that he did anything to protect H Biden .



Excuse me? Nothing so far suggest that the Biden name didn't get Hunter that job? You have to be kidding, right? I guess if you mean Joe didn't intervene, you "might" be right, no evidence so far but then we don't have any transcripts of Biden's calls to the Ukraine now do we? I sure would like to see those calls to Shorkin.


Trump only became interested in this after Biden SR put his hat in the ring


. Originally Posted by WTF

Because it had no meaning to the country before that, right? What if we elect Biden only to have the investigation turn up corruption? What then, another impeachment?

like hellary. joe biden's net worth took a sudden jump , especially during the Obama admin and thereafter

while a piker compared to hellary, he figured it out for himself somehow


Per an August 2019 article in Politico:


The day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Advisors was a memorable one.
In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s younger brother, James, purchased the firm. On their first day on the job, they showed up with Joe’s other son, Beau, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund’s chief of compliance to fire its president, according to a Paradigm executive who was present.



After the firing, the two large men escorted the fund’s president out of the firm’s midtown Manhattan office, and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund’s future. “Don’t worry about investors,” he said, according to the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation. “We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.”

At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid. According to the executive, James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We've got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

Biden refers to himself as “Middle-Class Joe,” and presents himself as a corrective to a system rigged by financiers and networked corporate elites.

At this, the executive recalled, Beau Biden, who was then running for attorney general of Delaware, turned bright red. He told his uncle, “This can never leave this room, and if you ever say it again, I will have nothing to do with this.”

and of course john Kerry's son and hunter biden's firm received a 130 million dollar loan from the u.s. government
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...e-biden-was-vp Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Another good example of why I stick to what is legal and what isn't and what most politicians do, lie and benefit financially from their positions something we keep hearing that Trump shouldn't be doing.

....open up additional avenues to investigate especially from my point of view if it hung Schiff out to dry. Oh how I would love that! I would pay good money to see that. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You want to see Shifty hung out to dry? It happens all the time!

Here's just one example.

(Psssst... my staff will be in touch with you to pick up the pee tape lol...)

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Enjoy! (No charge.)

Seems to be teflon DPST's - no matter how hypocritical and criminal the behavior - they walk away laughing, and none of their own crimes stick to them!

You want to see Shifty hung out to dry? It happens all the time!

Here's just one example.

(Psssst... my staff will be in touch with you to pick up the pee tape lol...)

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Enjoy! (No charge.)


Originally Posted by lustylad

I think they call that solicitation from a foreign national, information to be used against a political opponent. Isn't that what Trump is accused of doing? Isn't that what Dem's accuse Don Jr. of doing? "You've got dirt on Hilary, I'd love to see that". Jr. excuse was he didn't know any better. What's Schiff's excuse?

You want to see Shifty hung out to dry? It happens all the time!

Here's just one example.

(Psssst... my staff will be in touch with you to pick up the pee tape lol...)

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Enjoy! (No charge.)


Originally Posted by lustylad

I think they call that solicitation from a foreign national, information to be used against a political opponent. Isn't that what Trump is accused of doing? Isn't that what Dem's accuse Don Jr. of doing? "You've got dirt on Hilary, I'd love to see that". Jr. excuse was he didn't know any better. What's Schiff's excuse?


But I want the BIG charge against Schiff, lying to a Congressional committee about never having meet or told the name of the WB but then again, that's exactly what Hillary did, lie to a congressional committee so.............