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

Shocking Harvard Poll: 67% Of Americans Say Biden Should Be Impeached If Hunter Biden Corruption Proves True

NatMorton said:
No, a political favor in return need not be proven. If, repeat if, it can be demonstrated Joe Biden expected to benefit financially from meeting Hunter’s paymasters then that’s enough: it’s a pay-for-access scheme, i.e. bribery.
Click to expand...
Bribery? What’s the bribe?
 
Josie said:
Again, why would they go to a grand jury in the middle of the investigation? That doesn’t make any sense
Click to expand...
You are assuming the investigation has a single focus. Durham has gone to a grand jury twice now but his investigation is not yet over. Mueller impanelled several grand juries.

I have always said that I am convinced Hunter was up to no good. He is a scum bag! What I have also said is that I have seen nothing that implicates Joe Biden.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
Access to what? Tell me what Joe did as a result of one of these payments.
Click to expand...
Obviously no one here knows just yet as we are not in the investigation, but isn't providing undocumented access for money for ANYTHING bad enough?
 
NatMorton said:
A great point, and it explains the two positions we see in the media and even here on DP.

There are some, like me, who think an investigation is warranted in case these allegations are true.

Similarly, there are liberals here on DP who fight the idea of an investigation tooth-and-nail for the very same reason, i.e. in case these allegations are true.
Click to expand...

Agreed, no one should be above the law and no one should be immune from investigation based on the evidence.

That said, the OP has no interest in that subject. It is not surprising to me that while you acknowledge the "there are liberals here on DP who fight the idea of an investigation tooth-and-nail" you intentionally ignore those on the right who have already concluded guilt. Like the OP.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
With Kamala Harris on deck, US Senators would be fools to remove Joe “Where am I?” Biden from office.
Click to expand...
It is highly unlikely they would anyway. Joe Biden is well respected in the Senate ( save the usual suspects). They know the man and his character. Too bad he has such a jerk for a son but that isn't a reason to impeach much less convict.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Agreed, no one should be above the law and no one should be immune from investigation based on the evidence.

That said, the OP has no interest in that subject. It is not surprising to me that while you acknowledge the "there are liberals here on DP who fight the idea of an investigation tooth-and-nail" you intentionally ignore those on the right who have already concluded guilt. Like the OP.
Click to expand...
true it would be good on SO MANY subjects if guilt were not predetermined.

it would also be good if the media could run the story honestly the first time, AND when we get to THIS point where there is the logical possibility of corruption, we could all agree that further investigation is quite necessary.
 
Callen said:
Assert away! Until the rest of the emails in this dialogue are released the ones we have access to are by definition "out of context"

"out of context"
  1. without the surrounding words or circumstances and so not fully understandable.
    "comments that aides have long insisted were taken out of context"
Click to expand...
No, you're being slippery here. There is a fundamental difference between these two statements:
  • The words were taken out of context.
  • The words might have been taken out of context.

You're attempting to pass the former off as the latter, and I won't let you do it. It's entirely possible Hunter's words mean what they appear to mean. That is why an investigation is warranted.
 
Hypothetical said:
Obviously no one here knows just yet as we are not in the investigation, but isn't providing undocumented access for money for ANYTHING bad enough?
Click to expand...
It looks bad. It smells bad. It seems like it would be bad. But if we’re removing a POTUS shouldn’t there be a bad thing that is proven? By now has anyone even hinted at “joe did this because of that”?
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
It looks bad. It smells bad. It seems like it would be bad. But if we’re removing a POTUS shouldn’t there be a bad thing that is proven? By now has anyone even hinted at “joe did this because of that”?
Click to expand...
All that needs be proven is Joe accepted money for access. He need not do a thing more for it to be a bribe.
 
NatMorton said:
You don't consider pay-for-access a bribe, seriously?
Click to expand...
Access to what??? Talking to him? If I paid $10,000,000 to talk to Donald Trump about golf is that a bribe? What’s the thing Joe did because one of these people has access?
 
NatMorton said:
A bit of an aside, but feel free to disclose your political leaning on your DP profile. Presenting it as "Undisclosed" isn't fooling anyone,
Click to expand...
Haha seriously? What do you think my leaning is?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Agreed, no one should be above the law and no one should be immune from investigation based on the evidence.

That said, the OP has no interest in that subject. It is not surprising to me that while you acknowledge the "there are liberals here on DP who fight the idea of an investigation tooth-and-nail" you intentionally ignore those on the right who have already concluded guilt. Like the OP.
Click to expand...

I suppose that it depends largely on context. You seem to be arguing in the context of criminal charges requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a (unanimous jury) conviction. The OP seems to be arguing from the context of the (political?) impeachment process which has no such constraints and with a simple House majority vote can assert guilt with and with a 2/3 Senate supermajority vote can remove the ‘offeneder’ from office.
 
NatMorton said:
No, you're being slippery here. There is a fundamental difference between these two statements:
  • The words were taken out of context.
  • The words might have been taken out of context.

You're attempting to pass the former off as the latter, and I won't let you do it. It's entirely possible Hunter's words mean what they appear to mean. That is why an investigation is warranted.
Click to expand...
I'm attempting no such thing. The emails to his daughter were taken out of context. Without her emails, we have no way of knowing what his words meant. You don't need an investigation to access those emails. Release them and we will know what his words meant NOT what you think they meant.

NatMorton said:
That is why an investigation is warranted.
Click to expand...
Be patient it will very likely happen come November.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
Access to what??? Talking to him? If I paid $10,000,000 to talk to Donald Trump about golf is that a bribe? What’s the thing Joe did because one of these people has access?
Click to expand...
Let's take a comparison at a local level. Let's suppose there's a proposed zoning change in your town. Many people are for it and you're against it because you believe it will lower the value of your property. You believe that if you could explain your case to the chair of the zoning board it will help. On Monday you meet with the Zone's chair's assistant and say say "Hey, I'd like to meet with the zoning chair in private. Here's a $100 for you and another $100 for the chair to help make that happen." On Tuesday you get a text message from the chair saying "I spoke to my assistant and I'd be happy to meet with you on Friday."

Now, even though the meeting hasn't even happened, you've just bribed a public official, and that official has accepted a bribe.


Back to Joe Biden, if Joe did nothing wrong, then why is he (presumably) lying about meeting with his son's clients?
 
NatMorton said:
You don't consider pay-for-access a bribe, seriously?
Click to expand...
Apparently, you are unaware of all the political dinners at Mar a Lago and trump golf resorts where people paid tens of thousands to have access to Trump.
 
Callen said:
The emails to his daughter were taken out of context. Without her emails, we have no way of knowing what his words meant
Click to expand...
No, you keep getting this wrong. Hunter's messages may have been taken out of context and may mean something other than he's handed over substantial amounts of his lobbying earnings to his father. The other possibility you can't quite face is that there is no context that explains away the implications of those messages, and that Joe Biden has been benefiting financially from his son's lobbying.

Sorry, just can't take you seriously on this. You're desperately clinging to any excuse that would make this go away. I'm fairly sure a Republican House majority next year will not follow your lead, and then maybe we can confirm the context.
 
NatMorton said:
Let's take a comparison at a local level. Let's suppose there's a proposed zoning change in your town. Many people are for it and you're against it because you believe it will lower the value of your property. You believe that if you could explain your case to the chair of the zoning board it will help. On Monday you meet with the Zone's chair's assistant and say say "Hey, I'd like to meet with the zoning chair in private. Here's a $100 for you and another $100 for the chair to help make that happen." On Tuesday you get a text message from the chair saying "I spoke to my assistant and I'd be happy to meet with you on Friday."

Now, even though the meeting hasn't even happened, you've just bribed a public official, and that official has accepted a bribe.


Back to Joe Biden, if Joe did nothing wrong, then why is he (presumably) lying about meeting with his son's clients?
Click to expand...
You’re providing specifics in your example, and that’s precisely what I’d want to see if we’re going to go through another impeachment process.

As to your last question, I agree. But that’s still circumstantial. A more curious media would be all over that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom