• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhantomWolf said:
Regardless of whether his first job was merit based or not, he did get the experience of being an Executive Vice President.

But then starts the Catch-22. How many jobs did he have to hold down that had him in a high power position before he's qualified? He help start and tun a lobbying company, two investment companies, and a Consulting company. Is starting and running four companies not enough to say you are qualified to be on a Board of Directors? How about spending three years as a director of a $3.4 Billion dollar company? What would he need to do before anything he does is just as seen as him getting it because of his father.



Which as you noted was denied and no action was ever taken, so the evidence of wrong doing is pretty weak.

Were you aware that Devon Archer, who was one of Hunter's partners in BHR, was asked to be a Director on Burisma before Hunter? That it seems it was his idea to bring Hunter on board to help with International Relations and trying to improve their PR? It wasn't like they just rang him out of the blue and asked him to be on the Board.
Click to expand...
You're talking past me.

It looks bad, legal or not, deserved or not.

Naomi Kiein said today on a CSPAN interview it ties Biden's hands behind his back because he can't attack Trump's nepotism, the same way Clinton couldn't attack Trump's sexual assaults because of Bill.
 
quadraginta said:
No question about it. Hunter shouldn't have worked at all until his daddy stepped down from public office.

Even a job flipping burgers could be painted as inappropriately influenced by who his old man is.
Click to expand...

That's bull ****. Take your pick, absurd hyperbole or a blatant straw man.
 
Upchurch said:
Whether or not the Bidens did anything wrong, this thread is about the House Impeachment Inquiry into Trump, is it not? To those arguing that Trump’s actions where justified because he was asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, what other forms of corruption has Trump ever been interested in getting to the bottom of? Indeed, Trump’s own, plainly visible, forms of corruption show he does not care to have just any for of corruption investigated.

The Biden angle is smoke and mirrors to keep attention away from the actual problem.


Separate issue, what is with all the GOP people insisting on letting Trump defend himself during an investigation when it is the actual trial where that would appropriate?
Click to expand...
They are just being good little minions.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You're talking past me.

It looks bad, legal or not, deserved or not.

Naomi Kiein said today on a CSPAN interview it ties Biden's hands behind his back because he can't attack Trump's nepotism, the same way Clinton couldn't attack Trump's sexual assaults because of Bill.
Click to expand...

Biden shouldn't be attacking Trump on Nepotism anyways. He, and all the other Democrats need to attack him on his policies.

  • Taxpayers paying for a wall that can be easily scaled or cut through that than Mexico paying for an impenetrable wall that was promised.
  • Failure to provide a better healthcare plan as promised, and now they are trying to take away insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.
  • Tax cuts that only benefited the wealthy
  • Trade wars that have hurt farmers
  • Trade Deals that are no better than the ones that the US already had
  • Coal mines going bust and miners not getting their jobs back

Democrat Candidates need to be exposing each and every lie told to swing voters that fell for them in 2016, noting each and every broken promise that Trump made to them, and then giving them viable solutions that can meet them where they are and get them back on the Democrat's side.
 
acbytesla said:
That article is a bunch of crap.

To start with it's the National Review which is about as right wing neocon rag as you're ever going to find.

Secondly, the article references an unnamed source for a comment only an idiot would make. You can never prove it's false and that is the point. It can say anything it wants and you there is no way to disprove it.
Click to expand...
I did not hide the fact it was a right-wing source.

This whole argument that there is no there there because Hunter was this incredible lawyer right out of school, and it was all legal, and Joe had nothing to do with it and :words: ... misses the point.
 
Upchurch said:
I disagree. The Bidens are only an issue because the Republicans are desperately trying to make it one. The issue of Trump's impeachment is that Trump using is public office to extort Ukraine into making a public announcement that they were opening an investigation into Joe Biden's corruption, even though that investigation had already happened and found nothing.

Biden's actions have no bearing on whether Trump abused the power of his public office. Even if Biden were guilty up to his eyeballs of some illegal activity, this investigation is into Trump's actions.

I don't hear a lot of Democrats even talking about Hunter Biden, let alone defending him.
Click to expand...
All of these things are absolutely true.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
SOP? Standard operating procedure meaning they hired him, Joe had no part in it before or after? Sure.

There's nothing illegal, Hunter could have been (probably was) acting without any favors from Dad.

But this went on for years, multiple companies, millions of dollars. Joe either didn't think it was a problem or thought it was legal so, so what? Never asked his son (or his brother apparently) to not profit from Joe's name.

That's fine, it was his choice. It is business as usual for most of them, hire family members for Congressional offices, usually the local office. There are sweetheart deals. Joe is not worse or especially corrupt.

But it is unseemly, and no surprise some voters find it so and others say, meh.

If it was not an issue, why did Hunter resign when it came to light and admit it looked bad? Because it looks bad.

If this were Biden vs Trump it would be absurd to say it mattered given the scale of Trump's corruption. But this is the primary. Joe is business as usual. We need something better.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any evidence Joe actively intervened and did anything questionable in this regard. Intrguingly he didn't need to nor would it be possible for him to fully avoid it! A lot of companies and organizations are happy to hire people with connections when they apply: neither the application nor the connection need bring it up explicitly. Nor need the applicant nor the connection intend to exploit the connection: it's the people doing the hiring who are hoping for this.

What if Joe suspected his position might give his son some extra visibility and advantage in hiring: he is a dad and probably a little embarrassed but also happy this might help his kid. Nothing unusual about it. And what is the other chioce? To tell his son not to apply for any job? To do so under an assumed name?

In my experience many people who are hired to most any job benefited by having some connection to their new employers through a friend or family member who could recommend them. Or at least could communicate the availability of a job opening to the applicant. It's not influence so much as raising them from the anonymity of the pool of all the many other applicants. Historically many, many relatives and friends ended up joining the same company as their parent by this means.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The important point is, J Biden was working toward an investigation, he was not in any way trying to stop one. And that is where the Democrats should be putting their talking points, not putting them into defending Hunter or Joe.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although I do find it very important that, even if at the end of the day his loyalty had landed in the opposite way, with his kid and not with the country, that actually still wouldn't have been illegal.

It's a weird technical loophole he would have had, that because Hunter is an adult child instead of a minor child or a spouse, the conflict of interest legalities make that hypothetical perfectly legal.

eta:

It's important that under none of the hypothetical scenarios the republicans could even ever dream up did Joe Biden do anything illegal here.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Conflicts of interest exist when people are doing the right thing all the time.

Just HAVING a conflict of interest isn't some sin. All it means is "a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties."
Click to expand...

And Biden acted correctly in that situation, so your accusation was incorrect. You said the exact opposite.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
List of witnesses the Republicans want to call

The list includes Hunter Biden and the whistleblower.
Click to expand...

Sweet Jesus, they spend the entire opening paragraph just whining about how months and months ago Nancy Pelosi said she probably wouldn't impeach without Republican support.

Way to catch my ear, Republicans. You sound very serious and adult.

ETA: The entire text before listing people requested is just whining and whining like a preschooler.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Can you quote what I said that you think is incorrect?
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew that was coming.

kellyb said:
You don't have to have impure motives to be penalized for conflicts of interest.

If Biden's wife had a significant financial interest in Burisima, Biden would have been prohibited from using his office to fire the guy investigating it for corruption, according to the law.
Click to expand...

He did the exact opposite, against his son's boss' interests. Biden did the right thing.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah I knew that was coming.



He did the exact opposite, against his son's boss' interests. Biden did the right thing.
Click to expand...
He did the right thing.
He used his office to fire the guy [improperly] investigating it [Bursima] for corruption.

He had two interests which were in conflict. His loyalty to his son, and his loyalty to his oath of office. He had a conflict of interest, and chose the right path. His hands would have been legally tied from doing anything at all either way if it had been his wife and not his son on the board, though.

Are we agreed?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Bear in mind the topic of this thread. Every mention of you-know-who or his father is a successful derail, feeding into Republican talking points.

I suggest we just stop it. Now.
Click to expand...
I don't. These topics are relevant to the impeachment because they are a Republican response. No one here has said that Joe Biden did anything wrong or that the investigation request was motivated by serious suspicion.

I think we can discuss these issues without being unduly influenced by poor arguments and lies.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
List of witnesses the Republicans want to call

The list includes Hunter Biden and the whistleblower.
Click to expand...

It may not be the central point of discussion, but this really reinforces my opinion that politicians and lawyers (there's a huge overlap there) really need to get writing lessons.

Four pages to say what should have taken one.

Dear Guys

Here's a list of people of people we want to call.

  • A
  • list
  • of
  • people

GOP out.
 
Worm said:
It may not be the central point of discussion, but this really reinforces my opinion that politicians and lawyers (there's a huge overlap there) really need to get writing lessons.
Click to expand...

I question your premise. These are people that have spent decades in the study and practice of law and politics. They've made whole careers out of seeking influence and gaining advantage in those domains.

Rather than taking their texts as evidence that they don't know how to write, perhaps you should take them as evidence of a world you are unfamiliar with. If you assume that they are writing exactly how they intend to write, with all the skill born of long experience and knowledge of what works, then their texts become important windows into that world, and what's important there.
 
phiwum said:
I don't. These topics are relevant to the impeachment because they are a Republican response. No one here has said that Joe Biden did anything wrong or that the investigation request was motivated by serious suspicion.

I think we can discuss these issues without being unduly influenced by poor arguments and lies.
Click to expand...

But as the Republican response, it is a poor argument and lies or, at the very least CT-style JAQ'ing. At what point can we agree that the GOP response has been good and thoroughly debunked and get on to the real meat of the issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom