(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.