(10-18-2019 06:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: There's a lot of conflating of issues.
Much as there are a lot of people stating with certainty items that arent so certain. Funny that.
Quote:Was there an attempted cover up of this conflict of interest? No - Biden ignoring someone saying that they think a conflict of interest exists is in no way, shape, or form, a cover up (that requires active measures to suppress info).
Is there evidence that the conflict of interest led to corrupt or illegal actions? No. I've yet to see any suggestion of what came from the conflict of interest, outside of an outsized salary that Hunter should have turned down.
Is there evidence that Hunter's role influenced US foreign policy because of Biden? No. Biden led the removal of a prosecutor, which followed the international communities goals and would have likelier resulted in increased scrutiny into Hunter's appointment.
Of course you present everything there in the Vox-world light as fact, dont you?
Color me absolutely fing surprised you dont bother to mention the shared pages of the Shokin interview with Fox News:
Quote: “President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.”
Shokin then noted, according to the notes, that:
Quote:“in or around April of 2016” Poroshenko “told him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden.”
So there are some angles that claim that Shokin was working a shakedown. Some angles not. I dont know. If the latter, Biden's request is by itself evidence of corruption. So yes, lad, there is such evidence. Perhaps not when you have lad-blinders on and pre-suppose the issue of shakedown or not, but that is exactly what you have done.
But somehow you have presented the rock solid fact of the former. Color me shocked.
Also the singular fact of Hunter taking a no-report, no-work job for 50k a month that is pretty much an absolute certainty, but also may include bonus amounts for anywhere between 500k and 1.5 million in addition to that. That 'no-work', 'no-report' job for those sums is also decent evidence of some fish rotting somewhere.
Perhaps Hunter has malformed frontal lobe problems and is too fing dumb to bother with that second level of analysis; maybe not. My guess he is not. My guess is that Hunter had every idea of whom his father was. Kind of really hard not to be able to put that two piece jigsaw puzzle together for most.
For a conflict of interest, it the 'appearance of impropriety' --- that happens, for example in my profession when one client is a part owner of an LLC that I am the counterparty to. Such an appearance can occur when no one suspects or knows at the outset.
It is a completely different beast if my client for antitrust matters was, say, American Airlines, and I then turn around and represent, say, United Airlines, in a regulatory pricing action against American. That is one where the two pieces come together in a very explicit manner.
So, getting back to Hunter, no one says that 'if you are the VPs son, you cant do business.' But dont you find it absolutely 'strike you dead between the eyes' that there is a real fing problem with a 'no work' business deal worth anywhere between 600k and 2 or 3 million?
Cmon, this falls so far outside the ambit of 'gee poor Hunter really didnt know' it is astounding. That set of facts really falls more into the 'if Hunter didnt see this he absolutely should be in Depends and wearing a soft helmet' type issue.
No matter how the hell Vox (or your current shill) puts it.
