Treasury Department Turns Over Hunter Biden Financial Docs to Senate Republicans

OpportunityCost said:

Lying blah blah. You are only vocal of support for progressive ideas and politicians and only critical of conservative ideas and politicians.

Unless the people involved were all imbeciles, its not the kind of thing you are going to see on a graph, that's why its usually labeled as corruption. But you knew that before you made your bull**** challenge didn't you?

Click to expand...

That's BS. Tres and I have conflicted in the past, several times in fact.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

iguanaman said:

And guilty of all House charges. .

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the news. He was acquitted of all charges. We can all read the transcript of the call and see what he did. The Democrats characterization of what he did in the articles of impeachment is absurd. Their characterization in the articles was clearly based upon Schiffs parody of the conversation.

dixon01767 said:

And fired the following month after Bidens threat

Click to expand...

Because the international community was calling for Shokins dismissal, because Shokin was corrupt. Some of those under him were caught with money, goods that didnt belong to them and he let them keep it. He blocked records about Burismas owner from the UK courts until the statute of limitation ran out.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Captain Adverse said:

As well he should be IMHO.

The NSC membership serves at the pleasure of the President. If the sitting President has a problem with any member, he can have that member removed and replaced.

Their job is to offer "advice," not dictate policy.

In the famous words of Harry Truman, "the buck stops" with the President. Once the President has made a decision, then his advisors need to stop stonewalling and start getting with the program...or they can resign. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Exactly right. They are not appointed to freelance.

dixon01767 said:

Perhaps you missed the news. He was acquitted of all charges. We can all read the transcript of the call and see what he did. The Democrats characterization of what he did in the articles of impeachment is absurd. Their characterization in the articles was clearly based upon Schiffs parody of the conversation.

Click to expand...

Not to mention they allowed Trump no due process rights or his defense to cross examine witnesses in the House hearings.

roguenuke said:

That's BS. Tres and I have conflicted in the past, several times in fact.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You and I have agreed in the past. Doesn't mean anything.

dixon01767 said:

Perhaps you missed the news. He was acquitted of all charges. We can all read the transcript of the call and see what he did. The Democrats characterization of what he did in the articles of impeachment is absurd. Their characterization in the articles was clearly based upon Schiffs parody of the conversation.

Click to expand...

He was found guilty by the House and that stands forever as 1 of only 3 Presidents ever impeached.. He also had 48 Senators who voted guilty including one of his own party. That is another historic first for Dear Leader.

weaver2 said:

Something is desperately wrong within the Republican Party.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the disease the inflicts the Republican party is threatening American democracy. If we do not turn out the Republicans in November, assuming that we have fair elections, America could be lost.

ObamacareFail said:

Not to mention they allowed Trump no due process rights or his defense to cross examine witnesses in the House hearings.

Click to expand...

Silliness. Trump was not on trial in the house. He was under investigation,which led to an indictment. You have no rights to 'cross examine" at that stage of a prosecution. That said, unlike a real prosecution brought by a DA, Trump, through his party, had representation at every step of the way through the house process.

Trump had his day in court (in the Senate). The party that did not get its day in court was the truth, thanks to Mitch McConnell.

dixon01767 said:

Perhaps you missed the news. He was acquitted of all charges. We can all read the transcript of the call and see what he did. The Democrats characterization of what he did in the articles of impeachment is absurd. Their characterization in the articles was clearly based upon Schiffs parody of the conversation.

Click to expand...

A trial without important witnesses who could have provided first-hand testimony of what Trump did and intended to do isn't a real trial, so guess what?

It wasn't a real acquittal.

dcsports said:

What are they hoping to find out? According to the article, more information about Biden's relationship. Likely it's a routine step. Since they are asking for his travel records too, they might be looking into whether he cashed his paycheck without actually spending time at the company.

As far as the justification in that article, I'd take it with a grain of salt. It would be silly to think they hired him because of who his father was, and didn't expect to get some type of favorable treatment as a result. It was a clear conflict of interest. Also laughable is that they were supposedly leveraging him for 'American' knowledge of oil and drilling... when he doesn't have a background in that. They could have just hired someone with that knowledge, or used google themselves.

Click to expand...

The bolded issue does not matter, and is no concern of the US. The only concern of the US is whether he paid taxes. Getting paid for services not rendered would be a matter for Burisma stakeholders.

Silverado Savings & Loan hired Neil Bush because of who is father was. This happens all the time. It is not against the law. Silverado, like most S&L's at the time, crashed and burned. Neil Bush ended up doing little but embarrassing his father, which is pretty much all that Hunter Biden at Burisma has done.

Financial Scams and the Bush Family: The Savings & Loan Scandal, the BCCI, the Mexican Drug Cartel, NAFTA - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

What would be against the law is actions of the father in using the power of his position to provide favors for the son contrary to US policy. There is no evidence of that. Let us start with the fact that a Vice President of the United States doesn't really have all that much power, which makes this whole thing silly..... other than, its yet another brilliant example of Trump deflecting from his own corruption by shinning the light in another direction.

Any thoughts on how much Eric, Don Jr, Ivanka and Jared have made because of the Trump presidency?

Exactice said:

Did he violate a law in specific regards to the delay in the funds, it was released 09/11/2019 prior to the fiscal date of 09/30/2019. Any reason to suspect Putin was involved is either opinion or hyperbole, if not please provide facts.

Trump floating a con game? The burden of proof is on the accusations. Trump has questioned foreign aid for a while, to include NATO, other friendly nations and Puerto Rico and El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Nations riddle with corruption. So there is past precedence. Acting like he never has done this before is intellectually dishonest.


Trump holding up a possible state visit is tied to what? or is this your opinion of why it might have been. Bag man, cooked up scheme, please provide ANY testimony of anyone that actually has facts in relation to an ACTUAL scheme not just an opinion.

Announcement.... yes lets go back to the specific, Announcement of WHAT? Quote it.... as I recall the quote as "Public statement of Anti-Corruption" by Ukraine. Please provide FACTS where it was a public announcement of investigations into the Biden's. NOT opinions by those giving testimony, but FACT. The Fact was "Public Statement of Anti-Corruption"


the rest of your statements are fodder to incite a reaction I will do my best to stick to facts and not dive in the mud.


Thank you!

Click to expand...

Yes, Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

tres borrachos said:

I actually don't care much if they investigate Comey, etc. because they are/were public servants. Hunter Biden never was. He's a private citizen, and I have no idea why all of a sudden the Republicans feel the need to investigate a private citizen and a private company that isn't even based in this country.

I'm sure the citizens of Trump Fan Nation, most of whom didn't even know Hunter Biden was alive until their dear Leader went after him, will cheer this, proving themselves once again to be the biggest frauds and hypocrites I've ever laid eyes on.

Click to expand...

I was sitting here scratching my head wondering the same thing. Shouldn't the DOJ, the FBI or some other law enforcement agency be doing the investigation on a private citizen. I understand the senate investigating someone in the administration, congress, staffers, government officials both elected and appointed. But I've never heard of them investigating a private individual unless he was on someone staff or a government contractor, etc.

upsideguy said:

Unfortunately, the disease the inflicts the Republican party is threatening American democracy. If we do not turn out the Republicans in November, assuming that we have fair elections, America could be lost.

Click to expand...

Could be lost, LOL! To what? Not Socialist Bernie Sanders, you would be fine with that. What is so threatening to you about the Constitution, liberty, and freedom? Bad words to the left.

Michael Cole said:

I had a feeling you'd dismiss the article. It's reasoning is flawless, and the ex-president of Poland is credible. All you have is what you think would be silly. I'll trust the Polish pres. It would be silly to trust you.

Click to expand...

It's reasoning is fine, if you are naive and idealistic, and believe the people at Burisma were idiots.

upsideguy said:

The bolded issue does not matter, and is no concern of the US. The only concern of the US is whether he paid taxes. Getting paid for services not rendered would be a matter for Burisma stakeholders.

Silverado Savings & Loan hired Neil Bush because of who is father was. This happens all the time. It is not against the law. Silverado, like most S&L's at the time, crashed and burned. Neil Bush ended up doing little but embarrassing his father, which is pretty much all that Hunter Biden at Burisma has done.

Financial Scams and the Bush Family: The Savings & Loan Scandal, the BCCI, the Mexican Drug Cartel, NAFTA - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

What would be against the law is actions of the father in using the power of his position to provide favors for the son contrary to US policy. There is no evidence of that. Let us start with the fact that a Vice President of the United States doesn't really have all that much power, which makes this whole thing silly..... other than, its yet another brilliant example of Trump deflecting from his own corruption by shinning the light in another direction.

Any thoughts on how much Eric, Don Jr, Ivanka and Jared have made because of the Trump presidency?

Click to expand...

You are trying awfully hard to both dismiss the issue, and deflect.

If Hunter Biden did little but collect a check it highlights the fact that he wasn't hired for his skills, but for his connections. I noticed the bit about 'contrary to US policy' too - is that now the standard? Questionable behavior is fine if it's aligned with US policy?

Clearly VP Biden had a lot of influence here, and to any objective person the situation presented a clear conflict of interest. Note that the senate is not responsible for investigating a crime, but for working to create better laws - for example, that limit the opportunity for officials to run into a conflict of interest.

dcsports said:

It's reasoning is fine, if you are naive and idealistic, and believe the people at Burisma were idiots.

Click to expand...

I can't tell if this response indicates severe cynicism or straight up paranoia. Whichever, that sucks.

Or maybe it's just denial.

Whatever. I'm neither naïve nor idealistic, and the Burisma board were certainly not idiots. Perhaps you could explain your words? What part of the article did you not find credible?

Michael Cole said:

I can't tell if this response indicates severe cynicism or straight up paranoia. Whichever, that sucks.

Or maybe it's just denial.

Whatever. I'm neither naïve nor idealistic, and the Burisma board were certainly not idiots. Perhaps you could explain your words? What part of the article did you not find credible?

Click to expand...

If not naïve or idealistic, perhaps in denial?

I'll help -- Burisma didn't just hire Hunter Biden because he had a famous name. They hired him because he had a well connected father with influence over US policy in Ukraine, hoping it would pay off with favorable treatment. Burisma Board members were not idiots - enchanted by his ability to google information. He was not there to help them research drilling techniques used in the US.

upsideguy said:

Silliness. Trump was not on trial in the house. He was under investigation,which led to an indictment. You have no rights to 'cross examine" at that stage of a prosecution. That said, unlike a real prosecution brought by a DA, Trump, through his party, had representation at every step of the way through the house process.

Trump had his day in court (in the Senate). The party that did not get its day in court was the truth, thanks to Mitch McConnell.

Click to expand...

You are making it up as you go along. And you are confusing impeachment proceedings with impeachment inquiries. What you need to learn is that once it comes to a full house vote on impeachment proceedings, the President is in fact on trial. In the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings, their defense teams were allowed procedural rights and were allowed to cross examine witnesses, make objections, etc. They were allowed due process rights. Trump was not. The democrats ran the impeachment proceedings against Trump in Stalinist syle. As for the Senate trial, the truth was witnesses were heard through clips of those who testified in the House. Only Trump was on trial, not your partisan spin of what you want to think the truth was. It was Trump that was entitled to a fiar trial. He did not get one in the House, he did get one in the Senate.

W_Heisenberg said:

A trial without important witnesses who could have provided first-hand testimony of what Trump did and intended to do isn't a real trial, so guess what?

It wasn't a real acquittal.

Click to expand...

It was not a trial without witnesses. !7 witnesses were heard in the House hearings and clips of those witnesses were played in the Senate trial. As for first hand witnesses, the democrats could have called them in the house hearings and at one point did. They were just unwilling to contest executive privilege in court. And yes, it absolutely was a real acquittal.

ObamacareFail said:

It was not a trial without witnesses. !7 witnesses were heard in the House hearings and clips of those witnesses were played in the Senate trial.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm glad those witnesses testified. If they hadn't we'd know even less. Also, there were many MORE witnesses who could have provided direct, first-hand evidence of what transpired. And had they testified and Trump still have been acquitted, it would have been a real acquittal. But since they did not testify it's not a real acquittal. Those witnesses were blocked by Trump because Trump is TERRIFIED of what they will reveal. And so are you. And so are the Senate Republicans. Terrified. Because you all know that Trump is a thug and a crook.

As for first hand witnesses, the democrats could have called them in the house hearings and at one point did. They were just unwilling to contest executive privilege in court. And yes, it absolutely was a real acquittal.

Click to expand...

This is a red herring.

1. The legal argument being put forward by the White House in an attempt to block senior aides from testifying is bogus. They will lose the case and those aides will be forced to testify. It's just a matter of time.

2. There was nothing stopping either Trump or the Senate Republicans from encouraging the testimony of the first-hand witnesses that Trump had been blocking for months. The Senate could have helped speed up the process by joining with the House and calling for those witnesses to testify, or by subpoenaing them. This would have put great pressure on the President. The President, himself, could have done the right thing and allowed them to testify. Both the President and Senate Republicans WANTED a rigged trial with as few witnesses as possible because they were afraid that if Trump's senior aides testified that would implicate Trump.

The House was not in the wrong here. Trump was in the wrong by blocking them. and the Senate Republicans were wrong to not encouraging their testimony.

Anthony60 said:

Could be lost, LOL! To what? Not Socialist Bernie Sanders, you would be fine with that. What is so threatening to you about the Constitution, liberty, and freedom? Bad words to the left.

Click to expand...

1. I am not Bernie fan.... though I would take him or Mickey Mouse, for the matter over Donald Trump. Each have a greater understanding of the Constitution and love for America then Trump, who has neither of either.

2. Democratic socialism, when democratic, is very constitutional.

3. If you don't see the threat to the American constitution that the Trump presidency poses, you are not paying attention.

ObamacareFail said:

It was not a trial without witnesses. !7 witnesses were heard in the House hearings and clips of those witnesses were played in the Senate trial. As for first hand witnesses, the democrats could have called them in the house hearings and at one point did.

Click to expand...

There's also another way of looking at it.

Trump simply could have COOPERATED with the proceedings and not blocked important witnesses from testifying, as was his duty by virtue of the oath he took

Republican Senators could have assisted the House in conducting a thorough examination of Trump's conduct.

The only thing that prevented that from happening was the fear that the witnesses would implicate Trump in a crime or an impeachable offense.

If this was all one big misunderstanding Trump would have allowed the witnesses to testify so as to exculpate him.

They were just unwilling to contest executive privilege in court.

Click to expand...

Nope. This is not true on two counts:

1. Trump was not asserting executive privilege as it is traditionally known. Trump was suggesting that his senior aides are forbidden from testifying before Congress if he says so on the basis of absolute immunity. This is a bogus legal argument that has no precedent and that the district court has already ruled against, in the case of Miers, and also in the case of McGahn. I previously showed you both rulings, the actual official rulings, from the actual official court websites, but you were completely...unwilling...to educate yourself.

2. The House is already contesting the legal issue via the McGahn case. There is no point in going to court over the same legal issue for each and every witness. The House need only win the McGahn case.

And yes, it absolutely was a real acquittal.

Click to expand...

WRONG.

Sorry.

The fact that witnesses who could have provided direct evidence in the form of first-hand testimony under oath were BLOCKED by both Trump and the Senate Republicans means it was a FAKE trial and a FAKE acquittal.

upsideguy said:

1. I am not Bernie fan.... though I would take him or Mickey Mouse, for the matter over Donald Trump. Each have a greater understanding of the Constitution and love for America then Trump, who has neither of either.

2. Democratic socialism, when democratic, is very constitutional.

3. If you don't see the threat to the American constitution that the Trump presidency poses, you are not paying attention.

Click to expand...

Yes, so threatening, with that booming economy, protecting our boarders, and standing up for America! Oh boy, that's scary stuff! Let's get that Socialism in here right away, so I can feel safe.

tres borrachos said:

Can you post some evidence of the "millions of tax payer dollars" that the energy company received? Evidence, please. With legitimate links to back it up.

Click to expand...

The Biden family's dealings with this Ukrainian company involved getting one of the country's most notorious mob bankers, Ihor Kolomoisky, off the U.S. government visa ban list. Under Biden's leadership, $3 billion in aid went to Ukraine, and his son's company was implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money.
Ukraine Gas Firm Burisma Made $1.8 Billion in U.S. Aid Disappear. Joe Biden Was Obama's Point Man There, and His Son Hunter Is on the Board