CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-23-2019 04:30 PM

(10-23-2019 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(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:  Funny -- one of your own 'go-to' sources says this:


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


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


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


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.

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.....
[/quote]

No, but they are from a guy with a history of not telling the truth and having hidden agendas.

From Rice grad Casey Michel, who is very knowledgeable in eastern European affairs:https://www.thedailybeast.com/water-finds-its-level-as-fox-news-hires-dictator-loving-deep-state-loathing-john-solomon

Quote:This is a man, after all, about whom the Columbia Journalism Review wrote not one, not two, but three separate takedowns. (One headline: “John Solomon Gives Us Less Than Meets the Eye — Again”). The most recent topped out at nearly 5,000 words, highlighting Solomon’s “history of bending the truth to his storyline,” as well as his “hyping [of] petty stories” and his outsized habit of “massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”

Quote:To take one example, Solomon’s writing lent credence to the notion that the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, had given a Ukrainian prosecutor a “do-not-prosecute” list. One problem: there’s no evidence the list ever existed, and the prosecutor himself eventually walked back the claim entirely.

Quote:Fast-forward to 2019, and as FARA further outlines, Solomon was also in contact with Lanny Davis—a man who, until recently, was working on behalf of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

Accused by American authorities of massive bribery and described by the DOJ as an alleged “upper-echelon [associate] of Russian organized crime,” Firtash is currently fighting extradition from Austria to the United States. For help, Firtash recently hired conspiratorial pro-Trump lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova – both of whom have joined Rudy Giuliani in working to dig up Ukrainian dirt on Biden. (Firtash also just so happens to publicly loathe Biden.)



RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-23-2019 05:39 PM

Amazing -- anyone you dont agree with 'has a history of not agreeing with lad is automatically full of ****'. Lolz.

That is quite the convenient backstop there son. Perhaps you should tell us the 'lad approved' sources, that is, so the world can be so ever much more enlightened by your subjective judgement. Double lolz.

I mean in this thread alone we are up to three people/source whom should *automatically* be discounted per you. Triple lolz.

In three separate instances when items are posted -- zero issues on the substantive points in them, just attacks on the source. Good fing grief.

So lad, any fing comment on the substantive points in the Hill pieces? That is aside from attacks on the source?

Lucky no one posted anything from Project Veritas and their videos on CNN that came out recently. You would have a quadruple conniption fit.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-23-2019 05:46 PM

(10-23-2019 03:47 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(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.

[Image: giphy.gif]

Good job -- a gif w/o an ad hom. Baby steps are at least steps.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 10-23-2019 06:14 PM

(10-22-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Wow. I'm really struggling with how to respond to this because I know you're serious.
You're right that there's no evidence of a quo, but that actually makes it worse in my view. Why did they do it unless they thought there was something in it for them? Surely they interviewed the guy and surely they at least alluded to their intentions. We know nothing about that because we can't subpoena records or people in the Ukraine.

So what we CAN do is ask the leader of that nation to look into Ukrainian oil companies trying to buy influence within the US government

And I agree... corruption (trying to buy influence) is far worse than 'not cool'.

Let me say it differently to you.
Every month, I buy thousands of dollars of product from Staples using my corporate account. I have this processed through my AP department and I don't see a bill. I could also buy products from my local staples and submit an expense report and get paid back for it. I might even get miles on my credit card and points on my staples account. If my company paid the same price either way, they wouldn't care... and our AP people ensure that such purchases are within a range. It's not 'cool' because I'm personally benefiting from company purchases, which someone could say is 'unfair' because they don't get to do the same..... but it's not illegal, immoral or unethical... nor is it a violation of company policy. I don't do it because it's not a good look in my opinion.

This isn't remotely close to Walmart offering me a $100,000/yr in the hopes that I'll buy from them instead.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-23-2019 06:24 PM

(10-23-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing -- anyone you dont agree with 'has a history of not agreeing with lad is automatically full of ****'. Lolz.

That is quite the convenient backstop there son. Perhaps you should tell us the 'lad approved' sources, that is, so the world can be so ever much more enlightened by your subjective judgement. Double lolz.

I mean in this thread alone we are up to three people/source whom should *automatically* be discounted per you. Triple lolz.

In three separate instances when items are posted -- zero issues on the substantive points in them, just attacks on the source. Good fing grief.

So lad, any fing comment on the substantive points in the Hill pieces? That is aside from attacks on the source?

Lucky no one posted anything from Project Veritas and their videos on CNN that came out recently. You would have a quadruple conniption fit.

The fact that your last comment means you actually give some credence to Project Veritas is quadruple LOLZ.

Good fing grief is right - no wonder your feathers bristle when I suggest your source is ****.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-23-2019 06:42 PM

(10-23-2019 06:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Wow. I'm really struggling with how to respond to this because I know you're serious.
You're right that there's no evidence of a quo, but that actually makes it worse in my view. Why did they do it unless they thought there was something in it for them? Surely they interviewed the guy and surely they at least alluded to their intentions. We know nothing about that because we can't subpoena records or people in the Ukraine.

So what we CAN do is ask the leader of that nation to look into Ukrainian oil companies trying to buy influence within the US government

And I agree... corruption (trying to buy influence) is far worse than 'not cool'.

Let me say it differently to you.
Every month, I buy thousands of dollars of product from Staples using my corporate account. I have this processed through my AP department and I don't see a bill. I could also buy products from my local staples and submit an expense report and get paid back for it. I might even get miles on my credit card and points on my staples account. If my company paid the same price either way, they wouldn't care... and our AP people ensure that such purchases are within a range. It's not 'cool' because I'm personally benefiting from company purchases, which someone could say is 'unfair' because they don't get to do the same..... but it's not illegal, immoral or unethical... nor is it a violation of company policy. I don't do it because it's not a good look in my opinion.

This isn't remotely close to Walmart offering me a $100,000/yr in the hopes that I'll buy from them instead.

So is the line drawn because it was 7 figures and not 6?

If you're wanting to investigate a company seating a blood relative of a US politician, when there isn't evidence that the hiring resulted in a positive result for the country or company, how far down do we start? Again, a bit of a slippery slope to suggest that simply hiring Hunter is worthy of an investigation - at least Tanq's thought thought that Biden might have tried to obstruct an investigation is concerning.

And I fail to see how your Staples anecdote is relevant to this conversation. Are you providing Wal-Mart a service? Just because Hunter hadn't worked in oil and gas, doesn't mean he didn't provide value in areas of law, finance, etc. Guy did graduate from Yale Law School and has a ton of finance experience.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-24-2019 05:13 AM

(10-23-2019 06:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing -- anyone you dont agree with 'has a history of not agreeing with lad is automatically full of ****'. Lolz.

That is quite the convenient backstop there son. Perhaps you should tell us the 'lad approved' sources, that is, so the world can be so ever much more enlightened by your subjective judgement. Double lolz.

I mean in this thread alone we are up to three people/source whom should *automatically* be discounted per you. Triple lolz.

In three separate instances when items are posted -- zero issues on the substantive points in them, just attacks on the source. Good fing grief.

So lad, any fing comment on the substantive points in the Hill pieces? That is aside from attacks on the source?

Lucky no one posted anything from Project Veritas and their videos on CNN that came out recently. You would have a quadruple conniption fit.

The fact that your last comment means you actually give some credence to Project Veritas is quadruple LOLZ.

Good fing grief is right - no wonder your feathers bristle when I suggest your source is ****.

Havent watched any of PV videos in a good while. The fact that it made your autonomic reflex jerk like that tells me all I need to know.

The funny thing is that when I watch a PV video, I discern them for what is said, and what is implied. As opposed to your crayon eating knee jerk automatic action.

As for PV, some things are not really what they state they are in the voice over. Some of them are. Perhaps next time you analyze things in that vein instead of the automatic reflex you seemingly employ. Your blanket statement about PV kind is one of those blanket statements if you bother to note.

Here is a rule of thumb ---- If a source disagrees with lad and all his wordly wisdom, they must be liars. Sound good to you?


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 10-24-2019 05:33 AM

(10-22-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Number one, it may well be illegal under Ukraine law. I don't know their law, and I figure someone else who cares can research it and let me know.

Number two, it also may well be illegal under US law--the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

I'm not saying it is in fact illegal under either. I'm saying that we don't know enough facts to make that determination. We certainly don't know enough to state that it is "likely legal." As you admit, it's unethical. And in this context, unethical probably merits an investigation.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 10-24-2019 01:03 PM

I'm trying to be polite here. I'm not convinced your response deserves it, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

(10-23-2019 06:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So is the line drawn because it was 7 figures and not 6?

I never mentioned 7 figures... nor 5. The distinction to me is quite clear. In one, I'm doing the same thing either way... and just using a method to pay for it that marginally favors me and to which my company is indifferent. In the other, my business is quite obviously (at least trying to) being bought. In one, the price my company pays for products and services is the same. In the other, we don't know... and there is reason to suspect I might be looking out for my own interests over the company's.

If I want to use your logic, yes there is a difference between me walking home at the end of the day with a company pen versus a company computer in my briefcase. Stealing company pens isn't cool, but nobody really cares. Stealing company computers is a crime. I suppose in your mind this is the difference between 1 figure and perhaps 3 or maybe 4. [/quote]

Quote:If you're wanting to investigate a company seating a blood relative of a US politician, when there isn't evidence that the hiring resulted in a positive result for the country or company, how far down do we start? Again, a bit of a slippery slope to suggest that simply hiring Hunter is worthy of an investigation - at least Tanq's thought thought that Biden might have tried to obstruct an investigation is concerning.



Quote:And I fail to see how your Staples anecdote is relevant to this conversation. Are you providing Wal-Mart a service? Just because Hunter hadn't worked in oil and gas, doesn't mean he didn't provide value in areas of law, finance, etc. Guy did graduate from Yale Law School and has a ton of finance experience.
You say my comment isn't relevant and then go off in two different directions here. I've answered your first part. Yes, if they're getting my company's business because it benefits ME, then I'm providing them a service. The question is, am I still providing my COMPANY a service... or are my interests at odds with them? If my company ends up paying MORE because I'm directing business to Walmart because I'm getting paid by them, then that's a major issue.

You keep acting like I'm claiming there's an issue. I don't know if there is or not and neither do you. World wide there are millions of people who graduated from 'top' law schools and have tons of financial experience... and lots of them don't make $600,000/yr.

Had he been hired by Exxon, I am quite sure that there would be at least a cursory review and oversight to make sure that there was no conflict of interest. It wouldn't be illegal to hire him as you note, but the potential for conflict exists and it should be and would be monitored, as is Trump's potential conflict with his resorts. No such oversight exists within the Ukraine, and Trump asked for some.

Again, and you keep dodging this very clear issue....
I'll try and boil it down so you can respond...
Apparently Ukraine was so corrupt that it took international pressure to get them to act against a corrupt prosecutor... so why is Hunter Biden wanting to work there? Is it because they offered him 600k while XOM offered only 400K and Morgan Stanley offered 300k? Are there so many other Yale Law School finance guys that he has to go to one of the more corrupt nations on the planet to get a good job? Those are things we could perhaps find out by asking Hunter. Maybe the winters (or the women, so legends go) in Ukraine are just irresistible?

What we can't find out domestically is what Burisma thought they were 'buying' and why. Given the industry, the nation, the history and the position (son of the VP), these are not unreasonable questions.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-24-2019 04:02 PM

(10-24-2019 05:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Number one, it may well be illegal under Ukraine law. I don't know their law, and I figure someone else who cares can research it and let me know.

Number two, it also may well be illegal under US law--the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

I'm not saying it is in fact illegal under either. I'm saying that we don't know enough facts to make that determination. We certainly don't know enough to state that it is "likely legal." As you admit, it's unethical. And in this context, unethical probably merits an investigation.

Exactly.

Or just simply state 'not enough smoke. nothing to see. move along.'


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-24-2019 04:51 PM

(10-24-2019 04:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-24-2019 05:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Number one, it may well be illegal under Ukraine law. I don't know their law, and I figure someone else who cares can research it and let me know.

Number two, it also may well be illegal under US law--the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

I'm not saying it is in fact illegal under either. I'm saying that we don't know enough facts to make that determination. We certainly don't know enough to state that it is "likely legal." As you admit, it's unethical. And in this context, unethical probably merits an investigation.

Exactly.

Or just simply state 'not enough smoke. nothing to see. move along.'

I guess my hang up is that it isn't like Hunter was given the job today - it was in 2014 and we didn't really ever see a potential quo come from the deal through 2019.

If there was good evidence 5 years later that there was a quid pro quo or corrupting act, then it makes sense to investigate it 5 years after the fact, but I don't see it.

Were he to have taken the job yesterday, I agree about the smoke.

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in the lack of a dead body after 5 years?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-24-2019 05:41 PM

Wouldn't the 'dead body" be the fired official?

What was the 'dead body" in the russia investigation?

What is the "dead body" in the Ukraine foofaraw?

There were actual dead bodies in the Benghazi hearings.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-24-2019 07:05 PM

(10-24-2019 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wouldn't the 'dead body" be the fired official?

What was the 'dead body" in the russia investigation?

What is the "dead body" in the Ukraine foofaraw?

There were actual dead bodies in the Benghazi hearings.

If it was proven there was an active investigation when Shorkin was pushed out and the international community wasn’t pushing for the ouster, then yes.

The theory is Hunter was there to get the company or Ukraine favorable treatment that would be abnormal - did that happen?


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-24-2019 07:10 PM

(10-24-2019 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-24-2019 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wouldn't the 'dead body" be the fired official?

What was the 'dead body" in the russia investigation?

What is the "dead body" in the Ukraine foofaraw?

There were actual dead bodies in the Benghazi hearings.

If it was proven there was an active investigation when Shorkin was pushed out and the international community wasn’t pushing for the ouster, then yes.

No one seems to know the circumstances to the first statement as the what exactly the investigation was. I.e. that is why some of us think that is enough to actually dig some. As opposed to assuming a priori that nothing is wrong.

Quote:The theory is Hunter was there to get the company or Ukraine favorable treatment that would be abnormal - did that happen?

The investigation may have been kiboshed from the highest levels. I dont think that happens a lot. That is seemingly a non-normal action from that high a level.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 10-25-2019 09:30 AM

(10-24-2019 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ob today - it was in 2014 and we didn't really ever see a potential quo come from the deal through 2019.

Maybe we did and just didn't recognize it. The 'quo' after all wouldn't be as obvious to us.

Ukraine is very anti-Putin... MAYBE at least part of the reason that Putin went after Hillary and the Obama administration went from 'after the election I'll have more flexibility' and 'the 1980's want their foreign policy back' in just a few short years to 'Putin is the devil' and 'Trump and now Tulsi are agents' has to do with some negotiations.

Absolutely this is pure speculation... but the idea is, maybe all Ukraine wanted was for us to start putting more pressure on Russia? If they had sanctions, maybe Ukrainian oil would become more valuable. MAYBE they just wanted a voice inside our government??

That's not THAT far fetched, especially from someone who doesn't know much about the issues between Russia and Ukraine.


Again, I'm trying to figure out why Joe Biden wouldn't strongly discourage his son from taking a job in such a corrupt country... in such a troubling industry.

That really makes no sense to me.


RE: Trump Administration - At Ease - 10-25-2019 04:29 PM

(10-23-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

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.....

No, but they are from a guy with a history of not telling the truth and having hidden agendas.

From Rice grad Casey Michel, who is very knowledgeable in eastern European affairs:https://www.thedailybeast.com/water-finds-its-level-as-fox-news-hires-dictator-loving-deep-state-loathing-john-solomon

Quote:This is a man, after all, about whom the Columbia Journalism Review wrote not one, not two, but three separate takedowns. (One headline: “John Solomon Gives Us Less Than Meets the Eye — Again”). The most recent topped out at nearly 5,000 words, highlighting Solomon’s “history of bending the truth to his storyline,” as well as his “hyping [of] petty stories” and his outsized habit of “massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”

Quote:To take one example, Solomon’s writing lent credence to the notion that the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, had given a Ukrainian prosecutor a “do-not-prosecute” list. One problem: there’s no evidence the list ever existed, and the prosecutor himself eventually walked back the claim entirely.

Quote:Fast-forward to 2019, and as FARA further outlines, Solomon was also in contact with Lanny Davis—a man who, until recently, was working on behalf of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

Accused by American authorities of massive bribery and described by the DOJ as an alleged “upper-echelon [associate] of Russian organized crime,” Firtash is currently fighting extradition from Austria to the United States. For help, Firtash recently hired conspiratorial pro-Trump lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova – both of whom have joined Rudy Giuliani in working to dig up Ukrainian dirt on Biden. (Firtash also just so happens to publicly loathe Biden.)
[/quote]




RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 10-25-2019 05:04 PM

Pro Publica, eh? National Enquirer was busy doing their hair?


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-25-2019 05:09 PM

ProPublica burying the lead.

Quote: But a month after Lutsenko’s Hill TV appearance, the former Ukrainian prosecutor backed off of his allegations. He told a Ukrainian-language publication that he himself was the one who asked the U.S. ambassador for the list of supposedly untouchable figures. The State Department said there was never any list, calling it an “outright fabrication.” And Lutsenko told the Los Angeles Times last month that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing that would justify an investigation into Biden’s son’s business dealings in his country.



RE: Trump Administration - Fountains of Wayne Graham - 10-25-2019 05:27 PM

(10-25-2019 05:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pro Publica, eh? National Enquirer was busy doing their hair?

I've not heard much negative talk about Pro Publica. What's the beef?


RE: Trump Administration - InterestedX - 10-25-2019 06:36 PM

(10-25-2019 05:27 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(10-25-2019 05:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pro Publica, eh? National Enquirer was busy doing their hair?

I've not heard much negative talk about Pro Publica. What's the beef?

They've only won five Pulitzer Prizes. How good could they be?

03-banghead