Hunter Biden: No Gas Experience, No Ukraine Experience. How Does THREE Million Dollars Sound?

Anybody want to point out to me the investigation that proved the Biden's weren't corrupt? I keep hearing there is no proof they did anything wrong but isn't that what an investigation is for? Was any Democrat convinced when Trump said he didn't do anything wrong? No, they called for an investigation. . Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Let me explain in simple terms.

The investigation into the company that Biden's son was on the Board of was under investigation for illegal shit before Hunter became a Board member. The prosecutor stopped the investigation.....VP Biden and all the EU wanted him (the prosecutor) fired for corruption. He then was fired. It was not a shady let me get Rudy who is not part of the government so nobody will know why we are doing wtf we are doing.....it was a concentrated effort on all fronts. All on the up and up.

The fired prosecutor then lied to Rudy that he was fired for investigating the company in question when in fact he was fired for the exact opposite. He had stopped the investigation of the company.

So there has been an investigation into this and your dumbass wants another. Same as Trump wanted an investigation for two maybe three reasons. He wanted dirt on Biden. He wanted it to appear that Ukraine influenced the elections not Russia even though nobody but Trump and his merry band of flat earthers believe that bs. And he want a reason or cover to pardon Paul Maniford.

Please research before parroting ignorant talking points that prove you've done no actual research.

Because no POTUS does that. Not part of the job description. Know your history. And your constitutional separation of powers.

Can you cite a single instance where a sitting President has personally testified before a Congressional committee? Doesn't happen. Never will either. Originally Posted by lustylad

He can be questioned under oath....

He can send his underlings to testify if they could prove there was no 'quid pro quo' but he won't because there in fact was an effort for 'quid pro quo'.

He can be questioned under oath....

He can send his underlings to testify if they could prove there was no 'quid pro quo' but he won't because there in fact was an effort for 'quid pro quo'.


Originally Posted by WTF

Oh yeah!

Here’s the textbook definition of quid pro quo:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGKEfcj76Q

Oh yeah!

Here’s the textbook definition of quid pro quo:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGKEfcj76Q Originally Posted by bambino

We are talking politics dipshit.

We are talking politics dipshit.


Originally Posted by WTF

That was politics dipshit. And illegal.

Something you know nothing about. Just keep being the douchbag you are - you're an expert at that!!

We are talking politics dipshit.


Originally Posted by WTF

Something you know nothing about. Just keep being the douchbag you are - you're an expert at that!! Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

WTF is a quid pro dildo.

Listen to the mouth on this one. Fresh off trump's dick.
You run your mouth about a "smell test"? One day trump might make it to "only smelled like shit".

Every one of you moron's charges have a leap of repub faith in them.
You know, a lie.

You act like Biden acted like rudi-douche and tried to secretly advance a president's corrupt activities.
Biden was acting officially to advance US policy (openly stated US policy) as well as some of our allies.

Your stupidity amuses me. And because you make me laugh, here are 2 links that kick sand in both yours and your worthless quoted person's face.
Because you can't refute them, you'll pretend you didn't read them or that they're false.
Either way, you'll still be that stupid moron who makes me laugh and who sucks trump's dick.

Not because you're gay. Just because you like the taste of dick.

"Rand Paul’s false equivalence about Trump, Biden on Ukraine"

"What the evidence shows about Biden’s actions.

Paul’s reference to Biden threatening aid stems from when Biden called for Ukraine to fire prosecutor general Viktor Shokin.

Biden assumed a lead role in U.S. diplomacy toward Ukraine after a popular revolution in early 2014 that led to pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country. Shokin became top prosecutor in 2015.

Many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, viewed Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of the ruling class.

A frustrated Biden in December 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin was fired, in hopes that a new prosecutor would do more to enforce the law. According to Biden, it worked.

At a Jan. 23, 2018, event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden recounted his threat to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and from then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

"I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours," Biden recounted. "If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

The big point: On top of the international support for what he did, Biden was representing the views of the U.S. government and its foreign policy analysts."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-ukraine-were/

And;

"Donald Trump ad misleads about Joe Biden, Ukraine and the prosecutor"


"Our ruling

A Trump ad says "Fact: Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor .... Fact: the prosecutor said he was forced out for leading a corruption probe into Hunter Biden's company. Fact: Democrats want to impeach President Trump for discussing this investigation with Ukraine's President."

Biden called for Ukraine to fire Shokin, the prosecutor general, but so did many others. The facts show that Biden wanted Shokin removed due to widespread concerns that Shokin was ineffective in pursuing corruption cases — not that he was too aggressively pursuing cases. The Trump campaign cites Shokin himself, but he is not a reliable source. And Democrats want to impeach Trump for using foreign policy to promote his own re-election, not his desire to investigate corruption.

This ad claims a compilation of "facts," but it’s presentation and lack of context is so misleading as to be inaccurate. We rate this statement False."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-and-prosecut/

Just because you don't believe politifact is no excuse to spew the trump bullshit line....or should I say lines? They've gone from denial to admitting and everywhere in between.

And I know exactly what "influence peddling" is. It is illegal and is just one more charge you have no evidence it occurred.

You should have seen how many re-types I had to do because of you bringing up the "smell test" while you are a trumpy.
Like I said, your willingness to say something stupid never ceases to amaze me.

Thank you valued poster for giving us a quotable statement that proves you'll believe anything and say anything when saying nothing is your best move

Gawd are you stupid!

You can be stone-cold corrupt like the Bidens are without technically doing something illegal. Did you ever hear the phrase "it doesn't pass the smell test"? How about the old adage that public officials should "avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest"? What the fuck do you think the term "influence peddling" means?

But if you stupidly want to insist on a specific law that was violated, for starters here's one from another thread:



Only a blind clueless moron would ask what do the Bidens have to do with the impeachment clownshow! The need to investigate their stone-cold corruption is at the heart of this dim-retard stunt. If it wasn't for Quid Pro Quo Joe, none of this would be happening. Originally Posted by lustylad

Didn’t Trump say Hunter Biden took BILLIONS?

None of you EVER address the simple fact of this and all other things Trump. He’s a lying, crooked piece of elk shit, and all of you have become one too.

Give your balls a tug, if any of you have balls.

And I know exactly what "influence peddling" is. It is illegal and is just one more charge you have no evidence it occurred. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No, dumbass. If it was totally illegal then lobbying would be banned. It CAN be illegal and that's why most of the time it's done UTR. Like this...

"Hi, my name is Hunter Dickmuncher and my daddy is the Vice President and I'm looking for a high-paying job requiring no experience and next to no real work, can you help me?" Wink, wink.

Oh, dear! What's that smell?

Next time you're confused try looking it up first...

Influence peddling is the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favours or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment. Also called traffic of influence or trading in influence. In fact, influence peddling is not necessarily illegal as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has often used the term "undue influence peddling" to refer to illegal acts of lobbying. [1] However, influence peddling bears the stench of corruption that may de-legitimise democratic politics with the general public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_peddling

Got it? Now go back to sucking Quid Pro Joe's dick. Everyone knows that's your favorite activity because 1) you're gay and 2) you like the taste.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
And I know exactly what "influence peddling" is. It is illegal and is just one more charge you have no evidence it occurred.


"influence peddling" is a crime only if perpetrated by Republicans.

MMM knows his legal tomes
Politifact is such a reliable source of nonpartisan information.

LOL

Read Secret Empires maybe some people will understand