Why was Joe Biden on all those conference calls with Hunter's clients?

[jnug]

Pretty much everyone knows this is highly suspicious of selling, at the very least a "hope" of influence.

It does not mean it's illegal, but everyone knows it smells bad. Those claiming otherwise are simply lying.

So we are Impeaching on SMELL now?

 

[daeler]

You can't be serious with that question.

"Hi, Dad, you there? Great. I'd like you to meet some of my friends here at work. Sitting to my right is Vladdie -- say "hi" Vlad -- he's COO for Burisma. You remember Burisma, Dad, right? They're the company owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, the guy who was being investigated for alleged corruption and embezzlement in that case where you pressured the Ukrainian government to replace Shokin. Small world, huh? ..."

Your assumptions on how a conversation would go is a little ridiculous. Devon testified that Hunter and Joe would talk regularly on the phone, and that business was never discussed whenever someone was introduced. Shokin didn't investigate Burisma, Shokin was corrupt and multiple countries were trying to get Ukraine to fire him. The GOP is trying to spin it the other way but if you look back at everything that was going on before hunter even started at Burisma you will see that Shokin was Corrupt.

 

[NatMorton]

I said it in the post you quoted.

Because Hunter called him.

Cute.

Why make the call? What purpose did it serve?

 

[MaryP]

We are in agreement that yesterdays shit show is causing panic among the DP MAGA crowd.... BENGHAZI!

What happened yesterday? The hearing on impeachment, you mean? Why would that make them panic?

 

[NatMorton]

No. I think he was selling the appearance he had access.

Agreed, there is no proof, yet, beyond the appearance of access.

That said, do you think there's a problem if (repeat, if) Joe Biden benefited financially from selling the appearance of access?

 

[samiam5211]

Cute.

Why make the call? What purpose did it serve?

Why did Hunter make the call? To show them that he had the former vice president on speed dial. That's obvious.

You need to show something that proves Joe was in on the corruption. Questions aren't evidence.

 

[Simpletruther]

So we are Impeaching on SMELL now?

Did I claim that?

 

[daeler]

Why does it matter if he knew or not? If chatting up some guys on Burisma's board allowed his son to keep a lucrative job, what crime is there in chatting? Nothing of import was ever discussed, not even Burisma business.

Well then I suppose it comes down to why he would continue to allow Hunter to continue. If it is as you posit, then that's just a Dad looking out for his kid. My question feels better than the one originally posted since that was already answered by Archer's testimony.....

 

[NatMorton]

So we are Impeaching on SMELL now?

If it smells bad, don't you think an investigation is warranted?

 

[NatMorton]

Why did Hunter make the call? To show them that he had the former vice president on speed dial. That's obvious.

You need to show something that proves Joe was in on the corruption. Questions aren't evidence.

So again, we're in agreement that, at a minimum, Hunter was selling access to his father, yes?

 

[samiam5211]

So again, we're in agreement that, at a minimum, Hunter was selling access to his father, yes?

Hunter Biden should be in jail for many things.

It is clear that Hunter was selling access to his father. There is no evidence that he ever delivered meaningful access to his father.

 

[Mycroft]

I've posed this question before, but it really deserves its own thread. For the sake of this discussion, let's leave other evidence of suspicious behavior from the Biden's aside. Let's instead focus on this one question:

Can anyone provide a rational explanation for why Joe Biden would attend some 20 conference calls with clients paying his son millions of dollars to lobby that doesn't involve the selling of access to the Vice President of the United States?​

The floor is open.

The answer to your question is simple...so simple that it doesn't even deserve a thread.

“the keys to my family’s only asset.”​

 

[jnug]

Why would I be desperate? The question already prompted you, in post 6, to acknowledge Joe was on those calls to provide access and thus help Hunter's business. You've actually been very accommodating.

Why would you be desperate? Because your little narrative is falling apart and you are desperate to try to muddy up Joe Biden no matter what it takes.

I did not acknowledge that "Joe was on those calls to provide access" not in the context of how "access" has been used in this entire affair as presented by the goofy House Committee. I was not referring to access to power and influence and you would only have to read that post in the context of those that followed it to know that.

Mischaracterizing a poster's posts is one of the surest signs of DESPERATION we have around here. So now you can own that.

 

[jnug]

The answer to your question is simple...so simple that it doesn't even deserve a thread.

“the keys to my family’s only asset.”​

Said while Joe Biden was not even in elected office and not even running for elected office.

 

[jnug]

Did I claim that?

You certainly implied it.

Having trouble with English grammar are you?

 

[BlueTex]

If it smells bad, don't you think an investigation is warranted?

Then why did the house GQP have an impeachment hearing yesterday if an investigation has not been completed? Even their star witness testified that there is nothing impeachable...

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Agreed, there is no proof, yet, beyond the appearance of access.

That said, do you think there's a problem if (repeat, if) Joe Biden benefited financially from selling the appearance of access?

So we have left the sphere fact and are entering manufactured scenarios? Okay. I can answer fantasies.

Yes. But only in the sense that it is generic American political corruption. That is our system. And it is galling. There is nothing illegal involved.

McDonnell v United States

 

[americanwoman]

I've posed this question before, but it really deserves its own thread. For the sake of this discussion, let's leave other evidence of suspicious behavior from the Biden's aside. Let's instead focus on this one question:

Can anyone provide a rational explanation for why Joe Biden would attend some 20 conference calls with clients paying his son millions of dollars to lobby that doesn't involve the selling of access to the Vice President of the United States?​

The floor is open.

If that proved to be true - it would look to me that Joe attended those for the appearance of selling access to the Vice President for his son.

 

[jnug]

So we have left the sphere fact and are entering manufactured scenarios? Okay. I can answer fantasies.


Yes. But only in the sense that it is generic American political corruption. That is our system. And it is galling. There is nothing illegal involved.


McDonnell v United States

Well said....anybody that does not "understand" what was going on is IMO a juvenile idiot that has been living in a cave his entire life.

 

[Simpletruther]

You certainly implied it.

No, I didn't. You galley inferred it.

Having trouble with English grammar are you?

oh the grammar strategy. Yea run with that.

Hey I did not capitalize there either, you got me.

 

[jnug]

If that proved to be true - it would look to me that Joe attended those for the appearance of selling access to the Vice President for his son.

So are we now proposing that we Impeaching for "how it would look to you".

We seem to be forgetting that the GOP House has fabricated a sham Impeachment Hearing over this nonsense.

 

[jnug]

No, I didn't. You galley inferred it.

oh the grammar strategy. Yea run with that.

Hey I did not capitalize there either, you got me.

So you expect me to forget that the Loony House GOP has fabricated a sham Impeachment Inquiry over this nonsense? Sorry. that is the actual context for any of these threads. It should not have to be EXPLAINED in every post. Either you know that or you don't.

 

[MaryP]

So we are Impeaching on SMELL now?

LOL

 

[americanwoman]

So are we now proposing that we Impeaching for "how it would look to you".

We seem to be forgetting that the GOP House has fabricated a sham Impeachment Hearing over this nonsense.

The OP said nothing about impeachment and asked a question so I answered it.

A thorough unbiased investigation source should be done.

 

[Simpletruther]

So you expect me to forget that the Loony House GOP has fabricated a sham Impeachment Inquiry over this nonsense? Sorry. that is the actual context for any of these threads. It should not have to be EXPLAINED in every post. Either you know that or you don't.

This simply demonstrates you falsely inferred it from other posts. My post said nothing of it, directly or indirectly.