• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden had no conflict of interest

theLiquidGuy said:
Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?
Click to expand...

Biden corruptly took $50k/month in the most corrupt country from the most corrupt company in that country and then laundered the money through his son! And Ukraine is apparently not the only country where the Bidens were operating. Imagine if Trump made similar arrangements with his son??
 
James972 said:
Biden corruptly took $50k/month in the most corrupt country from the most corrupt company in that country and then laundered the money through his son! And Ukraine is apparently not the only country where the Bidens were operating. Imagine if Trump made similar arrangements with his son??
Click to expand...

You shouldn't state things like that unless you also have evidence to back it up.

Can you substantiate your allegation that Hunter was giving the money to his dad?
If not, then may I suggest that you prefix your allegations with "I suspect that..."
 
tacomancer said:
That just means Trump knows a little bit about plausible deniability.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it means.

What it means is that you and the raving lunatics in the Democrat-Socialist Party engineering the impeachment are making crap up and hoping nobody notices that all of the charges are exaggerated lies.

You must think the entire US population is as stupidly gullible as Brian Stelter and Chuck Todd.
 
code1211 said:
No, that's not what it means.

What it means is that you and the raving lunatics in the Democrat-Socialist Party engineering the impeachment are making crap up and hoping nobody notices that all of the charges are exaggerated lies.

You must think the entire US population is as stupidly gullible as Brian Stelter and Chuck Todd.
Click to expand...

uh huh.

So in that case Trump is stupid enough to not really know this is a conspiracy theory then.
 
ElChupacabra said:
how was it you eloquently stated it....ah, right: "blah blah blah".
:2wave:
Click to expand...


My response can be blah, blah, blah.

Your unsupported and irrational ideas are supposed to be proving guilt in some way. I am only observing that you have proven NOTHING.
 
code1211 said:
My response can be blah, blah, blah.

Your unsupported and irrational ideas are supposed to be proving guilt in some way. I am only observing that you have proven NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Nor have you addressed the main point I've been making regarding this whole mess: the administration could have provided all of the information to the House committees and let its officials testify to clear everything up. It hasn't, and that's why I think they have more to hide. You've proven nothing either since you premise is based on allowing the administration to obstruct.
 
theLiquidGuy said:
I can’t understand why Trump’s defenders keep using this deeply flawed defense. Here we go again. The President had no legal standing to freeze the aid. But he held it back for 55 days. So he did take action (and incidentally broke the law in so doing). Furthermore, if you try to bribe a police officer and the officer doesn’t accept it, you are still guilty of bribery. Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. But even if I am wrong about all of that (I’m not) it wouldn’t matter because as you ought to know by now: Quid pro quo is not even necessary. The malfeasance was in his solicitation of foreign interference, not in the execution of it.



The loan guarantees were not delayed. Not even for one second.


I’ll copy/paste from above: you ought to know by now: Quid pro quo is not even necessary. The malfeasance was in his solicitation of foreign interference, not in the execution of it..


quid pro quo is not wrong by itself, only if there is an underlying crime. Until recently there has been ample evidence that Joe’s motivations for QPQ were consistent with those of the United States (as well as the IMF, the EU, and Ukrainian anti-corruption groups). If that is indeed the case, then there is no wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part.


As I pointed out above, Trump illegally delayed the Ukraine aid package. Obama/Biden did not exercise any illegal method as I explained above.



As I have shown above, you have it exactly backwards. But we’ll need to wait and see how this latest memo, if accurate, shakes out.



I like to think I am consistent. Have I been?
Click to expand...

The threat to eliminate the aid to Ukraine entirely was leveled by Obama when Biden made the threat. The compliance with the demand was the favor purchased. Why do you say there was no connection?

The aid delivered to Ukraine prior to the deadline by the Trump Administration was never connected to any favor at all at any time for any reason. Why do you say it was?
 
code1211 said:
The threat to eliminate the aid to Ukraine entirely was leveled by Obama when Biden made the threat. The compliance with the demand was the favor purchased. Why do you say there was no connection?
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was no connection. I said:

"Until recently there has been ample evidence that Joe’s motivations for QPQ were consistent with those of the United States (as well as the IMF, the EU, and Ukrainian anti-corruption groups). If that is indeed the case, then there is no wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part."


I would also say that no actual action was taken on Joe Biden's part. No load guarantees were ever delayed. Not for one second. But even if he did take action once again I say:

"Until recently there has been ample evidence that Joe’s motivations for QPQ were consistent with those of the United States (as well as the IMF, the EU, and Ukrainian anti-corruption groups). If that is indeed the case, then there is no wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part."


The aid delivered to Ukraine prior to the deadline by the Trump Administration was never connected to any favor at all at any time for any reason. Why do you say it was?
Click to expand...

First of all, quid pro quo is not necessary. But if you insist it is...


See point #1 and #2 here

What about Mulvaney's comment "and that's why we did it"?

What about Sondland's testimony that there absolutely was quid pro quo?

Still not enough? Listen to The President...

Watch this clip from 6:20 - 6:40 where he basically says they withheld the aid because of "corruption" (which is code for biden investigation according to the July 25 call transcript):

Trump on Fox n Friends

I am sure there is more that I missed, but you can chew on that for now
 
Last edited:
theLiquidGuy said:
Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?
Click to expand...

If Biden used his position to aid his son in obtaining a position on a foreign BOD, then he did do something wrong. If he used his position to get a foreign prosecutor removed he did something wrong if it was done for the purpose of helping his son.
 
Integrityrespec said:
If Biden used his position to aid his son in obtaining a position on a foreign BOD, then he did do something wrong. If he used his position to get a foreign prosecutor removed he did something wrong if it was done for the purpose of helping his son.
Click to expand...


You are correct on your second sentence. "IF" he did it to help his son.
I am not sure if there is anything wrong with Biden putting a good word in for his son though.
If Biden used official action or influence to coerce the company to hire Biden that would be wrong. More likely is that Burisma wanted a "Biden" on the board for prestige.
 
theLiquidGuy said:
Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?
Click to expand...

Why do so many Democrats believe that lying is persuasive.

Even Joe Biden's son said he is father was lying and the NYT has published that the Ukraine prosecutor was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden was at risk prior to Biden using $1 billion US tax dollars to extort and bribe the Ukraine president to fire the prosecutor.

Starting a thread with what are known lies is persuasive to no one other than you by your message and othe Democrats who agree with Joe Biden's open declaration the Democrats should "no longer accept facts." In your message, you fully are on board with rejecting facts.
 
Every attack against Trump happens after a Democrat is caught. As a diversion - in conspiracy with the propaganda outlets owned by the richest people and corporations on earth - the MSM, press and Internet - they accuse Trump of exactly what the Democrat did.

Obama's administration openly obstructed justice blocking investigating Russian involvement in the election - so as a diversion they claim Trump did it.

Clinton - both of them - conspired with Russians in exchange for money over and over - with Russia receiving all Ukraine's Crimea and much of Eastern Ukraine and 20% of our Uranium.

Podesta money laundered thru a sanctioned Russia bank, so they divert by accusing Trump of doing so.

Biden openly bragged that he used $1 billion US tax dollars to extort and bribe the discharge of a foreign prosecutor AFTER the NYT printed that prosecutor was investigating the company his son was a million dollar a year board member of. So Democrats rage Trump did it and he should be impeached - though every witness with any knowledge swore Trump did not, while Biden confessed on national television.

Anything Trump is accused by Democratic talking heads and politicos is instead exactly what Democrats in government have done.
 
joko104 said:
Why do so many Democrats believe that lying is persuasive.

Even Joe Biden's son said he is father was lying
Click to expand...
Lying about what? do you have a link?


and the NYT has published that the Ukraine prosecutor was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden was at risk prior to Biden using $1 billion US tax dollars to extort and bribe the Ukraine president to fire the prosecutor.
Click to expand...
I am waiting for this NEW information to be checked out. You should too. I haven't seen any republican politicians make reference to this information, which tells me that it is not yet considered reliable info.




Starting a thread with what are known lies is persuasive to no one other than you by your message and othe Democrats who agree with Joe Biden's open declaration the Democrats should "no longer accept facts." In your message, you fully are on board with rejecting facts.
Click to expand...

Hey, take it easy on the accusations. I started this thread before I even heard about this new information. I am still not sure I should believe it because it has not yet been checked out. I am gonna wait and see. and until it is vetted I am not gonna help propagate it.
 
joko104 said:
Every attack against Trump happens after a Democrat is caught.
Click to expand...
Caught? WHO has been caught? please list some democrats that have been caught so we can discuss.

As a diversion - in conspiracy with the propaganda outlets owned by the richest people and corporations on earth - the MSM, press and Internet - they accuse Trump of exactly what the Democrat did.
Click to expand...
OMG! LOL ! This is funny because I think the exact thing about Trump. Practically everyday he creates a new distraction. and his number one tactic is to accuse the left of the things he is guilty of.


Obama's administration openly obstructed justice blocking investigating Russian involvement in the election - so as a diversion they claim Trump did it.
Click to expand...
That is not true. You are not making sense.
 
theLiquidGuy said:
Hmm...

Well I am a little concerned that you are referencing a Ukranian source when Ukrainian corruption is the issue at heart. But ok.
What's next?
Click to expand...

Are we never to trust Foreign sources when investigating American corruption on foreign soil? Is that why Guiliani went to Ukraine, because foreign sources cannot be trusted? You should be aware that I have dozens of American sources as well.
 
tacomancer said:
uh huh.

So in that case Trump is stupid enough to not really know this is a conspiracy theory then.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your comment means as a response to what I posted.
 
code1211 said:
I have no idea what your comment means as a response to what I posted.
Click to expand...

Basically given that the evidence revealed during the house testimony so far has been pretty overwhelming, either Trump is a fool being used by someone else or he is trying to cover up his actions. Given all the evidence that does point to him, him mentioning Burisma vs Biden specifically still results in the same thing (again, unless he is literally so much a fool that he is completely being used by someone else).
 
ElChupacabra said:
Nor have you addressed the main point I've been making regarding this whole mess: the administration could have provided all of the information to the House committees and let its officials testify to clear everything up. It hasn't, and that's why I think they have more to hide. You've proven nothing either since you premise is based on allowing the administration to obstruct.
Click to expand...

The House committees start out with bias on a daily basis, then employ lies to deceive the gullible to satisfy the addictive hate that they all share. They're both pushers and addicts. It's sad on so many levels.

Not participating in their fantasies merely stops feeding the addiction. I wonder if they will continue with their charade(s) after they've lost their majority... Maybe come in late at night to pretend they are still in charge?

Schiff caressing the gavel lovingly at midnight, alone in the darkness, sneaking in and out of the hearing rooms.

Ignoring their delusions to actually work on stuff is simply choosing to tackle productive labor rather than killing time watching them moan in ecstasy.

Do you think they'll EVER get over this and actually start doing whatever it is that they are paid to do?
 
theLiquidGuy said:
I didn't say there was no connection. I said:

"Until recently there has been ample evidence that Joe’s motivations for QPQ were consistent with those of the United States (as well as the IMF, the EU, and Ukrainian anti-corruption groups). If that is indeed the case, then there is no wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part."


I would also say that no actual action was taken on Joe Biden's part. No load guarantees were ever delayed. Not for one second. But even if he did take action once again I say:

"Until recently there has been ample evidence that Joe’s motivations for QPQ were consistent with those of the United States (as well as the IMF, the EU, and Ukrainian anti-corruption groups). If that is indeed the case, then there is no wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part."




First of all, quid pro quo is not necessary. But if you insist it is...


See point #1 and #2 here

What about Mulvaney's comment "and that's why we did it"?

What about Sondland's testimony that there absolutely was quid pro quo?

Still not enough? Listen to The President...

Watch this clip from 6:20 - 6:40 where he basically says they withheld the aid because of "corruption" (which is code for biden investigation according to the July 25 call transcript):

Trump on Fox n Friends

I am sure there is more that I missed, but you can chew on that for now
Click to expand...

You're doing back flips to distort reality.

Biden did it. Trump did not.

Them's the facts.

You're living in a fantasy world where down is up and left is right.

Biden did it. Trump did not.
 
code1211 said:
The House committees start out with bias on a daily basis, then employ lies to deceive the gullible to satisfy the addictive hate that they all share. They're both pushers and addicts. It's sad on so many levels.

Not participating in their fantasies merely stops feeding the addiction. I wonder if they will continue with their charade(s) after they've lost their majority... Maybe come in late at night to pretend they are still in charge?

Schiff caressing the gavel lovingly at midnight, alone in the darkness, sneaking in and out of the hearing rooms.

Ignoring their delusions to actually work on stuff is simply choosing to tackle productive labor rather than killing time watching them moan in ecstasy.

Do you think they'll EVER get over this and actually start doing whatever it is that they are paid to do?
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't; it just leaves more questions unanswered and creates the element of doubt on the motives for not participating. I think for some there will always be the perception of bias because impeachment is a political process; even looking back at Nixon, it didn't start out with bi-partisan consensus. The House Democrats have concluded their investigation and now it moves on the House Judiciary committee. Personally, I think it was a mistake for the current administration to not participate; it would have been the perfect venue to address all of the issues raised if all of this was a sham.

Your other comment about nothing else being done isn't accurate either since there are about 400 bills House Democrats have passed which aren't being addressed.
 
code1211 said:
You're doing back flips to distort reality.

Biden did it. Trump did not.
Click to expand...
My friend, you asked me why I said there was no QPQ with Joe Biden’s loan threat to Ukraine. My answer was that you are right: there was potential QPQ, but QPQ is not illegal or abuse by itself. There must be an underlying corrupt intent. And our best information at the time was that Joe was doing it for the benefit of the US. How is that a backflip???

Them's the facts.

You're living in a fantasy world where down is up and left is right.

Biden did it. Trump did not.
Click to expand...

Ok, You are right:

1) Biden did it. He bluffed Ukraine into giving the US what it wanted. That’s a good thing for us.

2) Trump did not complete his attempt. Because he got caught. Also a good thing.

Trump illegally stopped the aid package for 55 days. And when the whistle blower complaint was finally made public he released it. If Trump was legitimately fighting corruption in Ukraine why did he “coincidently” release the aid after the WB complaint? Why didn’t he keep on fighting foreign corruption?
 
tacomancer said:
Basically given that the evidence revealed during the house testimony so far has been pretty overwhelming, either Trump is a fool being used by someone else or he is trying to cover up his actions. Given all the evidence that does point to him, him mentioning Burisma vs Biden specifically still results in the same thing (again, unless he is literally so much a fool that he is completely being used by someone else).
Click to expand...

So your thesis on this is: Any investigation that involves a political figure is a violation of law?

Is that REALLY what you are asserting?
 
code1211 said:
So your thesis on this is: Any investigation that involves a political figure is a violation of law?

Is that REALLY what you are asserting?
Click to expand...

I will amend it for accuracy:

Any investigation where there is a personal conflict of interest should be recused and given to a more neutral party in the government. Otherwise that undermines trust and credibility in government and hurts our democracy.


While I personally suspect this is a legal violation, I am waiting for whats going on with the Rudi investigations before I make a positive determination. However, the testimony given the last few weeks has been quite damning of the president's behavior and so far the reasonable conclusion is that he was the mastermind even if there is no smoking gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom