(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, not really. It's pretty clear why he got the job - VP's kid. Unethical and immoral and ripe for corruption. If there was a credible claim to corruption, like the US provided aid against the will of the international community, Biden made some shady deals on the side, etc. than it would make sense to investigate.

There's a concept in law called "res ipsa loquitur," meaning, "the thing stands for itself." Hunter Biden was paid $50k/month for some reason. Being the VP's son is not enough to pay that kind of money, unless there is some kind of (wait for the words) quid pro quo. The mere existence of the contract is a credible indicator that some sort of corruption either occurred or was expected. There is a transaction here (or a series of them) that would be patently absurd at face. There either is or is not some explanation, and if there is, it would almost certainly involve some impropriety. That's why you investigate.

Quote:Your hypothetical about the cop is a bit off. A more apt comparison would be saying that you know a prostitute solicited the services, and you know there was a party explicitly interested in receiving the services, and met in person with the prostitute. Then you have evidence the prostitute slept with someone on the same day. You have all the ingredients of a crime and a crime was committed. Makes sense to figure out of the excited party was part of the crime, no?

No, you don't know that there was a party with intent to engage in such services, and your strongest evidence is that he did not in fact engage. You're saying it's like a guy went out looking for a hooker, he was approached by an undercover cop, he turned the cop down, but because he went out looking for a prostitute he is guilty of solicitation. That gets at the difference between collusion (which is not a crime) and conspiracy (which is). Merely meeting might constitute collusion, but conspiracy additionally requires that at the meeting some plan be hatched, and that some affirmative act to implement the plan must be accomplished by at least one of the co-conspirators. In terms of your hypothetical, the someone that the prostitute slept with later that day has to be the someone that solicited. That's not factually proved.

For criminal liability you must have an act, it must break some law, and there must have been criminal intent at the time of the act. The specific act in this case is actually three acts (met, developed plan, carried out some part of the plan). You don't have that. Without the act, intent is irrelevant criminally.

To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is. So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email), someone showing interest in the service (email), meeting with the services (Russian agent), and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

I love it when I hear the Democratic polka...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u...ire-233446


Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

We know the Democrats are hell bent on eliminating foreign interference in our elections. (unless they like it)

We also know they are against digging up dirt on opponents. (unless it comes through an anonymous leak)

They are so pure.

For some reason, this statement made me think of our recent debate on double standards:

And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

(10-18-2019 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Completely reasonable, and correct concern to have, but doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the sort of corrupt claims that Trump and co. have been making recently.

Really? Seriously?

This is where the left loses me.

We're talking about a country, so corrupt that the 'international community' put pressure on them to remove a prosecutor. Not an ambassador or other international dignitary, but an internal prosecutor. And the country was so corrupt that they wouldn't do it without some extraordinarily high level pressure...

and an industry within that country that the left has long maligned for its corruption...

and they give a $600,000/yr job to someone with no experience in the industry....

and the left just shrugs?

(10-22-2019 07:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Completely reasonable, and correct concern to have, but doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the sort of corrupt claims that Trump and co. have been making recently.

Really? Seriously?

This is where the left loses me.

We're talking about a country, so corrupt that the 'international community' put pressure on them to remove a prosecutor. Not an ambassador or other international dignitary, but an internal prosecutor. And the country was so corrupt that they wouldn't do it without some extraordinarily high level pressure...

and an industry within that country that the left has long maligned for its corruption...

and they give a $600,000/yr job to someone with no experience in the industry....

and the left just shrugs?

In this instance, the primary representative of the left on this board has called it unethical and said that Hunter was wrong for taking the job. That’s definitely more than a “not cool” response.

This happens to fall into that area of unethical but likely legal. And given that it is a private company, and not our government, I don’t know what we can legally do about things like this, when there isn’t evidence of a quo. I wish we could find some way to stop companies from hiring people simply because they feel it will curry favor with powerful people, but even I understand why laws like that would be a slippery slope in the private sector. I fully support anti-nepotism laws in the public sphere though.

(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

The point of a board is to impart that experience -- at the highest level. If someone is on a board, *and* taking millions of dollars from it, with zero experience, that is a pretty fing good indication of something rather wrong. Maybe from the company side, maybe from the board member side, maybe both.

Quote:And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is.

Being interested in dirt in the generic sense is not a crime. You overlook that cogent little fact.

Quote:So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email),

No problem there.

Quote:someone showing interest in the service (email),

Still no problem there.

Quote:meeting with the services (Russian agent),

Still no problem there.

Quote:and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

And yet again you fail to note a cogent point: the offer was turned down before that.

Here is a very on point example:

I get a call from Vinny saying he has really good speakers. I go to Vinny and he mentions he has Klipsches for 10 buck a pair. If I have no knowledge of the source of the goods -- no liability.

You keep writing in the knowledge aspect when there is zero evidence of that. Continuously.

Quote:And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

Still a stupid line you keep drawing. Cha cha cha.

In one instance you assume bad actions a priori from the setting and vindicate an investigation. In the latter, you utterly ignore the idea that bad actions are at the root a priori. Insto presto. And you keep jumping hoops to tell us the major fing difference. Kind of funny to watch you thrash like a spastic to do that --- but that is exactly what it is.

(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

Not necessarily, but there are more facts than that here. The compensation was excessive, the company was suspected of massive corruption, and IIRC was in some financial difficulty at the time. And the father was in position where he could, and boasted that he did, exert considerable leverage on the government responsible for investigating the corruption. Where all those additional factors are present, then there is sufficient suspicion to warrant investigation.

Quote:And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is. So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email), someone showing interest in the service (email), meeting with the services (Russian agent), and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

But you are misremembering the event, or failing to understand the applicable law. Criminal conspiracy requires a meeting, at which a plot is hatched, after which at least one act in furtherance is performed by some member of the conspiracy, with criminal intent. You have the meeting and you may have intent. Your problem is that you don't have the plot, and therefore the subsequent event cannot be performed to further a plot that was not hatched. You may have intent, but you don't have all of the requisite acts. In the solicitation of prostitution analogy, the defendant went out looking for a hooker, he was approached by an undercover policewoman, he turned her down, and later somebody other than our defendant may have had sex with a prostitute.

Quote:And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

And my intent is to explain why the investigation of the Trump team did not turn up a crime, and why investigation is warranted in Hunter Biden's case. I have no problem wit the idea that both cases should be investigated. But the investigation in one case turned up no crime, whereas we don't know about the other.

(10-22-2019 10:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

Not necessarily, but there are more facts than that here. The compensation was excessive, the company was suspected of massive corruption, and IIRC was in some financial difficulty at the time. And the father was in position where he could, and boasted that he did, exert considerable leverage on the government responsible for investigating the corruption. Where all those additional factors are present, then there is sufficient suspicion to warrant investigation.

Quote:And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is. So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email), someone showing interest in the service (email), meeting with the services (Russian agent), and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

But you are misremembering the event, or failing to understand the applicable law. Criminal conspiracy requires a meeting, at which a plot is hatched, after which at least one act in furtherance is performed by some member of the conspiracy, with criminal intent. You have the meeting and you may have intent. Your problem is that you don't have the plot, and therefore the subsequent event cannot be performed to further a plot that was not hatched. You may have intent, but you don't have all of the requisite acts. In the solicitation of prostitution analogy, the defendant went out looking for a hooker, he was approached by an undercover policewoman, he turned her down, and later somebody other than our defendant may have had sex with a prostitute.

Quote:And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

And my intent is to explain why the investigation of the Trump team did not turn up a crime, and why investigation is warranted in Hunter Biden's case. I have no problem wit the idea that both cases should be investigated. But the investigation in one case turned up no crime, whereas we don't know about the other.

Not sure why you or Tanq think I’m arguing that was Trump Jr did was criminal - don’t think I remember typing it. I’ve been very consistent in saying that it warranted an investigation, not that the actions constituted criminal activities.

I 100% agree that the Trump Tower meeting was itself not criminal, and that there has not been sufficient evidence produced to show that criminal activity took place regarding a quid pro quo.

My only push back in our conversation is I still don’t understand what potential crime is being investigated with Hunter Biden, because I don’t see the end criminal product. With Trump Jr you had the release of stolen emails (which is criminal - they were stolen), but with Hunter Biden you have what?

And one question about your initial statement, do we know that Biden’s payments were excessive for board membership? I don’t know what other board members were making or what board members at other O&G forms make - that is crucial info to know if we want to say whether or not it was excessive.

I do appreciate that you can at least admit, unlike Tanq, that board members do not necessarily have to have industry-relevant experience to sit on a board. In Tanq world, we would need to start investigating a **** ton of public companies because they have people without industry experience sitting on their board of directors.

(10-22-2019 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

The point of a board is to impart that experience -- at the highest level. If someone is on a board, *and* taking millions of dollars from it, with zero experience, that is a pretty fing good indication of something rather wrong. Maybe from the company side, maybe from the board member side, maybe both.

Quote:And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is.

Being interested in dirt in the generic sense is not a crime. You overlook that cogent little fact.

Quote:So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email),

No problem there.

Quote:someone showing interest in the service (email),

Still no problem there.

Quote:meeting with the services (Russian agent),

Still no problem there.

Quote:and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

And yet again you fail to note a cogent point: the offer was turned down before that.

Here is a very on point example:

I get a call from Vinny saying he has really good speakers. I go to Vinny and he mentions he has Klipsches for 10 buck a pair. If I have no knowledge of the source of the goods -- no liability.

You keep writing in the knowledge aspect when there is zero evidence of that. Continuously.

Quote:And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

Still a stupid line you keep drawing. Cha cha cha.

In one instance you assume bad actions a priori from the setting and vindicate an investigation. In the latter, you utterly ignore the idea that bad actions are at the root a priori. Insto presto. And you keep jumping hoops to tell us the major fing difference. Kind of funny to watch you thrash like a spastic to do that --- but that is exactly what it is.

Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation. Again, is there even a conspiracy theory of what quo was given to Hunter Biden or those connected to him?

I believe this line of reasoning was taken up regarding the Trump investigation, as people tried to argue that the stolen emails released weren’t actually stolen, and thus a crime wasn’t committed.

Sorry that your go to defense is trying to denigrate me - hope you feel good about yourself.

(10-23-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

The point of a board is to impart that experience -- at the highest level. If someone is on a board, *and* taking millions of dollars from it, with zero experience, that is a pretty fing good indication of something rather wrong. Maybe from the company side, maybe from the board member side, maybe both.

Quote:And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is.

Being interested in dirt in the generic sense is not a crime. You overlook that cogent little fact.

Quote:So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email),

No problem there.

Quote:someone showing interest in the service (email),

Still no problem there.

Quote:meeting with the services (Russian agent),

Still no problem there.

Quote:and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

And yet again you fail to note a cogent point: the offer was turned down before that.

Here is a very on point example:

I get a call from Vinny saying he has really good speakers. I go to Vinny and he mentions he has Klipsches for 10 buck a pair. If I have no knowledge of the source of the goods -- no liability.

You keep writing in the knowledge aspect when there is zero evidence of that. Continuously.

Quote:And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

Still a stupid line you keep drawing. Cha cha cha.

In one instance you assume bad actions a priori from the setting and vindicate an investigation. In the latter, you utterly ignore the idea that bad actions are at the root a priori. Insto presto. And you keep jumping hoops to tell us the major fing difference. Kind of funny to watch you thrash like a spastic to do that --- but that is exactly what it is.

Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation. Again, is there even a conspiracy theory of what quo was given to Hunter Biden or those connected to him?

I believe this line of reasoning was taken up regarding the Trump investigation, as people tried to argue that the stolen emails released weren’t actually stolen, and thus a crime wasn’t committed.

Sorry that your go to defense is trying to denigrate me - hope you feel good about yourself.

I am not suggesting that a crime be committed prior to an investigation being a valid concern. I am suggesting that there is a better than average by a long shot potential possibility of one occurring. Perhaps nothing actually untoward actually happened; but there is plenty of smoke to find out if something did.

VP --- son -- son 0 experience -- 2 million dollars -- investigation into son's company -- VP asks for investigation to stop. Looks, sounds, and quacks like a fing possibility. At least to this redneck deplorable.

That is, except in lad-world. The 'spastic' comment is your unrelenting adherence to a priori classifying that chain as business as normal and no need to even fing look.

But you are bending yourself into literal pretzels to maintain on an a priori basis that there is no indication that something is amiss in chain above. There may not be something amiss, but there is very much an indication that something should be looked at a little closer. That is unless you see no fing issue with (VP -- son -- son zero experience -- son board seat with company -- son paid 2 million -- company saying stuff about son's positions being close to power -- investigation into company, perhaps into son -- VP asks for investigation to stop).

I will grant you that nothing is dispositive -- but the entire fing chain reeks to high heaven. I will grant you the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing there, but good fing god no one with half a brain of sense can claim that there isnt at least a basis to investigate *that* chain.

"2015 prevalence statistics and median pay amounts for S&P 500 companies" indicated total compensation for a typical director was $260,000.

Source: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/03/...nd-future/

Burisma is not an S&P 500 company, and appears to be somewhat smaller than the average S&P 500 company. Therefore payment of director compensation more than twice the S&P average seems quite excessive.

(10-23-2019 08:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

The point of a board is to impart that experience -- at the highest level. If someone is on a board, *and* taking millions of dollars from it, with zero experience, that is a pretty fing good indication of something rather wrong. Maybe from the company side, maybe from the board member side, maybe both.

Quote:And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is.

Being interested in dirt in the generic sense is not a crime. You overlook that cogent little fact.

Quote:So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email),

No problem there.

Quote:someone showing interest in the service (email),

Still no problem there.

Quote:meeting with the services (Russian agent),

Still no problem there.

Quote:and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

And yet again you fail to note a cogent point: the offer was turned down before that.

Here is a very on point example:

I get a call from Vinny saying he has really good speakers. I go to Vinny and he mentions he has Klipsches for 10 buck a pair. If I have no knowledge of the source of the goods -- no liability.

You keep writing in the knowledge aspect when there is zero evidence of that. Continuously.

Quote:And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.

Still a stupid line you keep drawing. Cha cha cha.

In one instance you assume bad actions a priori from the setting and vindicate an investigation. In the latter, you utterly ignore the idea that bad actions are at the root a priori. Insto presto. And you keep jumping hoops to tell us the major fing difference. Kind of funny to watch you thrash like a spastic to do that --- but that is exactly what it is.

Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation. Again, is there even a conspiracy theory of what quo was given to Hunter Biden or those connected to him?

I believe this line of reasoning was taken up regarding the Trump investigation, as people tried to argue that the stolen emails released weren’t actually stolen, and thus a crime wasn’t committed.

Sorry that your go to defense is trying to denigrate me - hope you feel good about yourself.

I am not suggesting that a crime be committed prior to an investigation being a valid concern. I am suggesting that there is a better than average by a long shot potential possibility of one occurring. Perhaps nothing actually untoward actually happened; but there is plenty of smoke to find out if something did.

VP --- son -- son 0 experience -- 2 million dollars -- investigation into son's company -- VP asks for investigation to stop. Looks, sounds, and quacks like a fing possibility. At least to this redneck deplorable.

That is, except in lad-world. The 'spastic' comment is your unrelenting adherence to a priori classifying that chain as business as normal and no need to even fing look.

But you are bending yourself into literal pretzels to maintain on an a priori basis that there is no indication that something is amiss in chain above. There may not be something amiss, but there is very much an indication that something should be looked at a little closer. That is unless you see no fing issue with (VP -- son -- son zero experience -- son board seat with company -- son paid 2 million -- company saying stuff about son's positions being close to power -- investigation into company, perhaps into son -- VP asks for investigation to stop).

I will grant you that nothing is dispositive -- but the entire fing chain reeks to high heaven. I will grant you the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing there, but good fing god no one with half a brain of sense can claim that there isnt at least a basis to investigate *that* chain.

Frankly, the "fact" that you keep peddling that Biden asked an investigation to stop isn't fact. If it were, I would 100% support an investigation, as that seems beyond unethical and likely criminal for a few reasons.

The fact that the only evidence that this occurred are notes from Rudy, makes me out almost 0 stock in that being true. If a legitimate source comes out suggesting that happened, that is bad and does need to be fully investigated, to see if Biden pushed US policy to protect his son.

And to your comment about experience - again, look at boards across the world, they regularly include people with 0 experience in that field, for a number of reasons. That fact alone, and a pay scale (without information about pay to other board members), doesn't seem overly fishy. Would you invite an investigation every time a child of a powerful person sits on the board of a private company, in an industry they don't work in?

(10-23-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation.

So, what was the crime that led to the Trump/Russia investigation?

At least the Hunter Biden situation involves the exchange of $$$ for influence, since HB had nothing else to sell, and it involves JB bragging about withholding US money in order to get a certain guy fired (quid pro quo) which is exactly what the Dems are claiming Trump did.

And of course, it involves Democrats dealing with a country that admitted it interfered with our elections on their behalf, which aid I am sure they were happy to get.

And now it involves a Dem (Lad) saying but this is completely different. Nothing to see here.

(10-23-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The point of a board is to impart that experience -- at the highest level. If someone is on a board, *and* taking millions of dollars from it, with zero experience, that is a pretty fing good indication of something rather wrong. Maybe from the company side, maybe from the board member side, maybe both.


In one instance you assume bad actions a priori from the setting and vindicate an investigation. In the latter, you utterly ignore the idea that bad actions are at the root a priori. Insto presto. And you keep jumping hoops to tell us the major fing difference. Kind of funny to watch you thrash like a spastic to do that --- but that is exactly what it is.

Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation. Again, is there even a conspiracy theory of what quo was given to Hunter Biden or those connected to him?

I believe this line of reasoning was taken up regarding the Trump investigation, as people tried to argue that the stolen emails released weren’t actually stolen, and thus a crime wasn’t committed.

Sorry that your go to defense is trying to denigrate me - hope you feel good about yourself.

I am not suggesting that a crime be committed prior to an investigation being a valid concern. I am suggesting that there is a better than average by a long shot potential possibility of one occurring. Perhaps nothing actually untoward actually happened; but there is plenty of smoke to find out if something did.

VP --- son -- son 0 experience -- 2 million dollars -- investigation into son's company -- VP asks for investigation to stop. Looks, sounds, and quacks like a fing possibility. At least to this redneck deplorable.

That is, except in lad-world. The 'spastic' comment is your unrelenting adherence to a priori classifying that chain as business as normal and no need to even fing look.

But you are bending yourself into literal pretzels to maintain on an a priori basis that there is no indication that something is amiss in chain above. There may not be something amiss, but there is very much an indication that something should be looked at a little closer. That is unless you see no fing issue with (VP -- son -- son zero experience -- son board seat with company -- son paid 2 million -- company saying stuff about son's positions being close to power -- investigation into company, perhaps into son -- VP asks for investigation to stop).

I will grant you that nothing is dispositive -- but the entire fing chain reeks to high heaven. I will grant you the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing there, but good fing god no one with half a brain of sense can claim that there isnt at least a basis to investigate *that* chain.

Frankly, the "fact" that you keep peddling that Biden asked an investigation to stop isn't fact. If it were, I would 100% support an investigation, as that seems beyond unethical and likely criminal for a few reasons.

Funny -- one of your own 'go-to' sources says this:

Quote:Dec. 8, 2015. In Kiev, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokin’s ouster.

That followed the demand from the US Ambassador to do the same.

Quote:The fact that the only evidence that this occurred are notes from Rudy, makes me out almost 0 stock in that being true.

Funny, whomever the source, the WashPo uses it to say just that.

Quote:If a legitimate source comes out suggesting that happened, that is bad and does need to be fully investigated, to see if Biden pushed US policy to protect his son.

Funny with your god-like infatuation with the WashPo, I would think both those items in that timeline fit that bill.

Quote:And to your comment about experience - again, look at boards across the world, they regularly include people with 0 experience in that field, for a number of reasons. That fact alone, and a pay scale (without information about pay to other board members), doesn't seem overly fishy. Would you invite an investigation every time a child of a powerful person sits on the board of a private company, in an industry they don't work in?

Look closely at my comment -- 2 million dollars *and* no experience. There is a fing reason for the 'and' in that statement. Please read.

2 million dollars. When the company itself says that they are 'purchasing' him for his connections. I mean the Gatherer Biden situation is such a fing outlier that it screams. I mean you cant even concede that, let alone that Biden asked for a cessation of the investigation.

Interesting to see a pretzel do so well with dancing the cha cha cha.

(10-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The point of a board is to impart that experience -- at the highest level. If someone is on a board, *and* taking millions of dollars from it, with zero experience, that is a pretty fing good indication of something rather wrong. Maybe from the company side, maybe from the board member side, maybe both.


In one instance you assume bad actions a priori from the setting and vindicate an investigation. In the latter, you utterly ignore the idea that bad actions are at the root a priori. Insto presto. And you keep jumping hoops to tell us the major fing difference. Kind of funny to watch you thrash like a spastic to do that --- but that is exactly what it is.

Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation. Again, is there even a conspiracy theory of what quo was given to Hunter Biden or those connected to him?

I believe this line of reasoning was taken up regarding the Trump investigation, as people tried to argue that the stolen emails released weren’t actually stolen, and thus a crime wasn’t committed.

Sorry that your go to defense is trying to denigrate me - hope you feel good about yourself.

I am not suggesting that a crime be committed prior to an investigation being a valid concern. I am suggesting that there is a better than average by a long shot potential possibility of one occurring. Perhaps nothing actually untoward actually happened; but there is plenty of smoke to find out if something did.

VP --- son -- son 0 experience -- 2 million dollars -- investigation into son's company -- VP asks for investigation to stop. Looks, sounds, and quacks like a fing possibility. At least to this redneck deplorable.

That is, except in lad-world. The 'spastic' comment is your unrelenting adherence to a priori classifying that chain as business as normal and no need to even fing look.

But you are bending yourself into literal pretzels to maintain on an a priori basis that there is no indication that something is amiss in chain above. There may not be something amiss, but there is very much an indication that something should be looked at a little closer. That is unless you see no fing issue with (VP -- son -- son zero experience -- son board seat with company -- son paid 2 million -- company saying stuff about son's positions being close to power -- investigation into company, perhaps into son -- VP asks for investigation to stop).

I will grant you that nothing is dispositive -- but the entire fing chain reeks to high heaven. I will grant you the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing there, but good fing god no one with half a brain of sense can claim that there isnt at least a basis to investigate *that* chain.

Frankly, the "fact" that you keep peddling that Biden asked an investigation to stop isn't fact. If it were, I would 100% support an investigation, as that seems beyond unethical and likely criminal for a few reasons.

Funny -- one of your own 'go-to' sources says this:

Quote:Dec. 8, 2015. In Kiev, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokin’s ouster.

That followed the demand from the US Ambassador to do the same.

Quote:The fact that the only evidence that this occurred are notes from Rudy, makes me out almost 0 stock in that being true.

Funny, whomever the source, the WashPo uses it to say just that.

Quote:If a legitimate source comes out suggesting that happened, that is bad and does need to be fully investigated, to see if Biden pushed US policy to protect his son.

Funny with your god-like infatuation with the WashPo, I would think both those items in that timeline fit that bill.

Quote:And to your comment about experience - again, look at boards across the world, they regularly include people with 0 experience in that field, for a number of reasons. That fact alone, and a pay scale (without information about pay to other board members), doesn't seem overly fishy. Would you invite an investigation every time a child of a powerful person sits on the board of a private company, in an industry they don't work in?

Look closely at my comment -- 2 million dollars *and* no experience. There is a fing reason for the 'and' in that statement. Please read.

2 million dollars. When the company itself says that they are 'purchasing' him for his connections. I mean the Gatherer Biden situation is such a fing outlier that it screams. I mean you cant even concede that, let alone that Biden asked for a cessation of the investigation.

Interesting to see a pretzel do so well with dancing the cha cha cha.

No **** Biden, and the international community, pushed to oust Shokin - I've said that multiple times! Seriously, are you that dense to think that's the part I disagree with?

The issue is whether Biden did this because there was an investigation open into his son. You've only provided ONE source that says there was an active investigation, and that is from Rudy's fricken notes!

There is no dancing - Hunter acted unethically and created an obvious conflict of interest for his father. It's almost certain that part of the decision to take him on the board was to try and curry favor with the US (hence the unethical nature of Hunter's decision). It's not clear whether his payment was an outlier to the rest of the board. It also isn't uncommon for board members to have no experience in the industry in which the company operates. Even Owl#s agreed to that point. Your "AND" doesn't add much - do you think people sit on companies' boards without the expectation of compensation? If that "AND" included say, $2MM more than any other board member, then that's really damning, because he is an outlier.

But anyways, it's exhausting when you intentionally, without question, try and twist someone's argument into a pretzel (and then try and accuse me of doing that!), and forget all previous posts that have been made within, what, 48

(10-23-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, very spastic to suggest that a crime need to be committed prior to investigation. Again, is there even a conspiracy theory of what quo was given to Hunter Biden or those connected to him?

I believe this line of reasoning was taken up regarding the Trump investigation, as people tried to argue that the stolen emails released weren’t actually stolen, and thus a crime wasn’t committed.

Sorry that your go to defense is trying to denigrate me - hope you feel good about yourself.

I am not suggesting that a crime be committed prior to an investigation being a valid concern. I am suggesting that there is a better than average by a long shot potential possibility of one occurring. Perhaps nothing actually untoward actually happened; but there is plenty of smoke to find out if something did.

VP --- son -- son 0 experience -- 2 million dollars -- investigation into son's company -- VP asks for investigation to stop. Looks, sounds, and quacks like a fing possibility. At least to this redneck deplorable.

That is, except in lad-world. The 'spastic' comment is your unrelenting adherence to a priori classifying that chain as business as normal and no need to even fing look.

But you are bending yourself into literal pretzels to maintain on an a priori basis that there is no indication that something is amiss in chain above. There may not be something amiss, but there is very much an indication that something should be looked at a little closer. That is unless you see no fing issue with (VP -- son -- son zero experience -- son board seat with company -- son paid 2 million -- company saying stuff about son's positions being close to power -- investigation into company, perhaps into son -- VP asks for investigation to stop).

I will grant you that nothing is dispositive -- but the entire fing chain reeks to high heaven. I will grant you the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing there, but good fing god no one with half a brain of sense can claim that there isnt at least a basis to investigate *that* chain.

Frankly, the "fact" that you keep peddling that Biden asked an investigation to stop isn't fact. If it were, I would 100% support an investigation, as that seems beyond unethical and likely criminal for a few reasons.

Funny -- one of your own 'go-to' sources says this:

Quote:Dec. 8, 2015. In Kiev, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokin’s ouster.

That followed the demand from the US Ambassador to do the same.

Quote:The fact that the only evidence that this occurred are notes from Rudy, makes me out almost 0 stock in that being true.

Funny, whomever the source, the WashPo uses it to say just that.

Quote:If a legitimate source comes out suggesting that happened, that is bad and does need to be fully investigated, to see if Biden pushed US policy to protect his son.

Funny with your god-like infatuation with the WashPo, I would think both those items in that timeline fit that bill.

Quote:And to your comment about experience - again, look at boards across the world, they regularly include people with 0 experience in that field, for a number of reasons. That fact alone, and a pay scale (without information about pay to other board members), doesn't seem overly fishy. Would you invite an investigation every time a child of a powerful person sits on the board of a private company, in an industry they don't work in?

Look closely at my comment -- 2 million dollars *and* no experience. There is a fing reason for the 'and' in that statement. Please read.

2 million dollars. When the company itself says that they are 'purchasing' him for his connections. I mean the Gatherer Biden situation is such a fing outlier that it screams. I mean you cant even concede that, let alone that Biden asked for a cessation of the investigation.

Interesting to see a pretzel do so well with dancing the cha cha cha.

No **** Biden, and the international community, pushed to oust Shokin - I've said that multiple times! Seriously, are you that dense to think that's the part I disagree with?

The issue is whether Biden did this because there was an investigation open into his son. You've only provided ONE source that says there was an active investigation, and that is from Rudy's fricken notes!

You are correct. With you, the mere statement of 'no' means that you are utterly convinced of that issue. And you stand there bleating there should be no investigation of that. With literally nothing else beyond that.

I mean you ***** and holler about 'presuppositions' -- that is precisely what the **** you are doing.

Quote:There is no dancing - Hunter acted unethically and created an obvious conflict of interest for his father. It's almost certain that part of the decision to take him on the board was to try and curry favor with the US (hence the unethical nature of Hunter's decision). It's not clear whether his payment was an outlier to the rest of the board.

The fact that Biden came down on the prosecutor sure as fk raises an iota of 'something happened' given everything else. I am not saying that it did. I *am* saying it is sufficient 'smoke' (in ladspeak) to warrant a serious look at whether it did. You scream there is "nothing further to look at. Walk away. Nothing there." All by its little lonesome.

In-f-cking amazing turnaround for you when the political polarity is turned.

Quote:It also isn't uncommon for board members to have no experience in the industry in which the company operates. Even Owl#s agreed to that point. Your "AND" doesn't add much

It adds two fing million to the mix, son. A couple of fing zeroes worth of added benefit. I am glad that raises zero fing questions for you. Especially with a 'zero work' gig.

Quote: - do you think people sit on companies' boards without the expectation of compensation?

Quit the superlative crap, son. Please note where I ever said or even intimated that 'board members should expect zero compensation'.

Quote:If that "AND" included say, $2MM more than any other board member, then that's really damning, because he is an outlier.

Glad to note you are defending the 'appearance of propriety' for a 2mm do nothing gig. Would have never expected that from a fellow traveler.

Quote:But anyways, it's exhausting when you intentionally, without question, try and twist someone's argument into a pretzel (and then try and accuse me of doing that!), and forget all previous posts that have been made within, what, 48

What of yours have I 'twisted'? Get off your gd soapbox.

(10-23-2019 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am not suggesting that a crime be committed prior to an investigation being a valid concern. I am suggesting that there is a better than average by a long shot potential possibility of one occurring. Perhaps nothing actually untoward actually happened; but there is plenty of smoke to find out if something did.

VP --- son -- son 0 experience -- 2 million dollars -- investigation into son's company -- VP asks for investigation to stop. Looks, sounds, and quacks like a fing possibility. At least to this redneck deplorable.

That is, except in lad-world. The 'spastic' comment is your unrelenting adherence to a priori classifying that chain as business as normal and no need to even fing look.

But you are bending yourself into literal pretzels to maintain on an a priori basis that there is no indication that something is amiss in chain above. There may not be something amiss, but there is very much an indication that something should be looked at a little closer. That is unless you see no fing issue with (VP -- son -- son zero experience -- son board seat with company -- son paid 2 million -- company saying stuff about son's positions being close to power -- investigation into company, perhaps into son -- VP asks for investigation to stop).

I will grant you that nothing is dispositive -- but the entire fing chain reeks to high heaven. I will grant you the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing there, but good fing god no one with half a brain of sense can claim that there isnt at least a basis to investigate *that* chain.

Frankly, the "fact" that you keep peddling that Biden asked an investigation to stop isn't fact. If it were, I would 100% support an investigation, as that seems beyond unethical and likely criminal for a few reasons.

Funny -- one of your own 'go-to' sources says this:

Quote:Dec. 8, 2015. In Kiev, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokin’s ouster.

That followed the demand from the US Ambassador to do the same.

Quote:The fact that the only evidence that this occurred are notes from Rudy, makes me out almost 0 stock in that being true.

Funny, whomever the source, the WashPo uses it to say just that.

Quote:If a legitimate source comes out suggesting that happened, that is bad and does need to be fully investigated, to see if Biden pushed US policy to protect his son.

Funny with your god-like infatuation with the WashPo, I would think both those items in that timeline fit that bill.

Quote:And to your comment about experience - again, look at boards across the world, they regularly include people with 0 experience in that field, for a number of reasons. That fact alone, and a pay scale (without information about pay to other board members), doesn't seem overly fishy. Would you invite an investigation every time a child of a powerful person sits on the board of a private company, in an industry they don't work in?

Look closely at my comment -- 2 million dollars *and* no experience. There is a fing reason for the 'and' in that statement. Please read.

2 million dollars. When the company itself says that they are 'purchasing' him for his connections. I mean the Gatherer Biden situation is such a fing outlier that it screams. I mean you cant even concede that, let alone that Biden asked for a cessation of the investigation.

Interesting to see a pretzel do so well with dancing the cha cha cha.

No **** Biden, and the international community, pushed to oust Shokin - I've said that multiple times! Seriously, are you that dense to think that's the part I disagree with?

The issue is whether Biden did this because there was an investigation open into his son. You've only provided ONE source that says there was an active investigation, and that is from Rudy's fricken notes!

You are correct. With you, the mere statement of 'no' means that you are utterly convinced of that issue. And you stand there bleating there should be no investigation of that. With literally nothing else beyond that.

I mean you ***** and holler about 'presuppositions' -- that is precisely what the **** you are doing.

There is no dancing - Hunter acted unethically and created an obvious conflict of interest for his father. It's almost certain that part of the decision to take him on the board was to try and curry favor with the US (hence the unethical nature of Hunter's decision). It's not clear whether his payment was an outlier to the rest of the board.

The fact that Biden came down on the prosecutor sure as fk raises an iota of 'something happened' given everything else. I am not saying that it did. I *am* saying it is sufficient 'smoke' (in ladspeak) to warrant a serious look at whether it did. You scream there is nothing further to look at. Walk away. Nothing there.

In-f-cking amazing turnaround for you when the political polarity is turned.

Quote:It also isn't uncommon for board members to have no experience in the industry in which the company operates. Even Owl#s agreed to that point. Your "AND" doesn't add much

It adds two fing million to the mix, son. A couple of fing zeroes worth of added benefit. I am glad that raises zero fing questions for you.

Quote: - do you think people sit on companies' boards without the expectation of compensation?

Quit the superlative crap, son. Please note where I ever said or even intimated that 'board members should expect zero compensation'.

Quote:If that "AND" included say, $2MM more than any other board member, then that's really damning, because he is an outlier.

Glad to note you are defending the 'appearance of propriety' for a 2mm do nothing gig. Would have never expected that from a fellow traveler.

Quote:But anyways, it's exhausting when you intentionally, without question, try and twist someone's argument into a pretzel (and then try and accuse me of doing that!), and forget all previous posts that have been made within, what, 48

What of yours have I 'twisted'? Get off your gd soapbox.
[/quote]

What did you twist? Half your screed centered on the idea that I didn’t believe Biden pushed to have Shorkin removed.

That’s not at all what I’ve said, I said that the only evidence that Shorkin was actively investigating Biden and told to stop is from Rudy’s notes - not exactly an unbiased source.

Never change, Tanq

With your "nothing but gif and one line ad hom" post I see that you never change either, Fountains. Your skill at communication exclusively by ad hom and picture combination is only surpassed by some 4 year olds. I almost want to go out and buy some crayons to emulate your offerings.

(10-23-2019 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frankly, the "fact" that you keep peddling that Biden asked an investigation to stop isn't fact. If it were, I would 100% support an investigation, as that seems beyond unethical and likely criminal for a few reasons.

Funny -- one of your own 'go-to' sources says this:

Quote:Dec. 8, 2015. In Kiev, Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden joins many Western leaders in urging Shokin’s ouster.

That followed the demand from the US Ambassador to do the same.

Quote:The fact that the only evidence that this occurred are notes from Rudy, makes me out almost 0 stock in that being true.

Funny, whomever the source, the WashPo uses it to say just that.

Quote:If a legitimate source comes out suggesting that happened, that is bad and does need to be fully investigated, to see if Biden pushed US policy to protect his son.

Funny with your god-like infatuation with the WashPo, I would think both those items in that timeline fit that bill.

Quote:And to your comment about experience - again, look at boards across the world, they regularly include people with 0 experience in that field, for a number of reasons. That fact alone, and a pay scale (without information about pay to other board members), doesn't seem overly fishy. Would you invite an investigation every time a child of a powerful person sits on the board of a private company, in an industry they don't work in?

Look closely at my comment -- 2 million dollars *and* no experience. There is a fing reason for the 'and' in that statement. Please read.

2 million dollars. When the company itself says that they are 'purchasing' him for his connections. I mean the Gatherer Biden situation is such a fing outlier that it screams. I mean you cant even concede that, let alone that Biden asked for a cessation of the investigation.

Interesting to see a pretzel do so well with dancing the cha cha cha.

No **** Biden, and the international community, pushed to oust Shokin - I've said that multiple times! Seriously, are you that dense to think that's the part I disagree with?

The issue is whether Biden did this because there was an investigation open into his son. You've only provided ONE source that says there was an active investigation, and that is from Rudy's fricken notes!

You are correct. With you, the mere statement of 'no' means that you are utterly convinced of that issue. And you stand there bleating there should be no investigation of that. With literally nothing else beyond that.

I mean you ***** and holler about 'presuppositions' -- that is precisely what the **** you are doing.

There is no dancing - Hunter acted unethically and created an obvious conflict of interest for his father. It's almost certain that part of the decision to take him on the board was to try and curry favor with the US (hence the unethical nature of Hunter's decision). It's not clear whether his payment was an outlier to the rest of the board.

The fact that Biden came down on the prosecutor sure as fk raises an iota of 'something happened' given everything else. I am not saying that it did. I *am* saying it is sufficient 'smoke' (in ladspeak) to warrant a serious look at whether it did. You scream there is nothing further to look at. Walk away. Nothing there.

In-f-cking amazing turnaround for you when the political polarity is turned.

Quote:It also isn't uncommon for board members to have no experience in the industry in which the company operates. Even Owl#s agreed to that point. Your "AND" doesn't add much

It adds two fing million to the mix, son. A couple of fing zeroes worth of added benefit. I am glad that raises zero fing questions for you.

Quote: - do you think people sit on companies' boards without the expectation of compensation?

Quit the superlative crap, son. Please note where I ever said or even intimated that 'board members should expect zero compensation'.

Quote:If that "AND" included say, $2MM more than any other board member, then that's really damning, because he is an outlier.

Glad to note you are defending the 'appearance of propriety' for a 2mm do nothing gig. Would have never expected that from a fellow traveler.

Quote:But anyways, it's exhausting when you intentionally, without question, try and twist someone's argument into a pretzel (and then try and accuse me of doing that!), and forget all previous posts that have been made within, what, 48

What of yours have I 'twisted'? Get off your gd soapbox.

What did you twist? Half your screed centered on the idea that I didn’t believe Biden pushed to have Shorkin removed.

That’s not at all what I’ve said, I said that the only evidence that Shorkin was actively investigating Biden and told to stop is from Rudy’s notes - not exactly an unbiased source.
[/quote]

Another source

ANd yet another offering, same author

Hate to tell you these arent from Rudy's notes, lad.

The main problem is that there are indications that what Biden relates isnt the entire story -- you know, the story you have accepted lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. Just because...... I guess. I guess if lad accepts that as gold-plated the rest of the fing world should.....

(10-23-2019 03:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  With your "nothing but gif and one line ad hom" post I see that you never change either, Fountains. Your skill at communication exclusively by ad hom and picture combination is only surpassed by some 4 year olds. I almost want to go out and buy some crayons to emulate your offerings.