Bill Barr and his October Surprise

[Horatius]

The core problem is that Hunter Biden was put on the board of a Ukranian gas company despite having no experience in the Ukraine or the gas industry. Despite having just been discharged from the Navy Reserve for cocaine use. This happened at a time when his father was Vice President and specifically handling Ukraine relations.

That problematic appointment creates a ripe environment for speculation. Why was Hunter appointed if not to curry favor with the VP, his father? It really doesn't make sense any other way. A relatively reasonable person can make inferences that lead them to concluding that there was at least some motive for corruption on Burisma's part.

Okay, so let's say this is all true, and Burisma did act with the intention of gaining influence over VP Biden. Fine.

That's an act of corruption by Burisma, not Biden.

Just because they hired his kid, is no reason he has to suddenly fall all over himself to start providing them with corrupt favors. "Do this or we'll fire your kid!" "Go ahead, you've already paid him $250,000 dollars, he can live on that for quite some time!"

Unless you can point to an act committed by VP Biden that is clearly corrupt, there's still nothing there. And after years of investigations backed by the president of the United States, the only evidence anyone has provided is this weaksauce "Oh, why did they hire him?" speculation. Their evidence for corruption is so weak that just this week they've started pushing obviously forged e-mails as evidence.

 

[Babbylonian]

it’s a private company anyway right? Whether or not they’re making bad hiring decisions is entirely up to them. Real question is what did Joe Biden do. And if the best you got is an email that Rudy Giuliani found in a water logged computer he got from a MAGA nut, well, LOL at you for believing that

An e-mail that, even if it's real (it isn't), doesn't even provide evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[xjx388]

Okay, so let's say this is all true, and Burisma did act with the intention of gaining influence over VP Biden. Fine.

That's an act of corruption by Burisma, not Biden.

Just because they hired his kid, is no reason he has to suddenly fall all over himself to start providing them with corrupt favors. "Do this or we'll fire your kid!" "Go ahead, you've already paid him $250,000 dollars, he can live on that for quite some time!"

Unless you can point to an act committed by VP Biden that is clearly corrupt, there's still nothing there. And after years of investigations backed by the president of the United States, the only evidence anyone has provided is this weaksauce "Oh, why did they hire him?" speculation. Their evidence for corruption is so weak that just this week they've started pushing obviously forged e-mails as evidence.

As I very clearly said, I don't see any evidence that there was corruption on the Bidens' part. My point is that 1)It can, at the very least, create an appearance of impropriety which could have been avoided (and which was a concern for the Obama Admin at the time) and 2)Someone who is otherwise reasonable but not very well informed and/or partisan (which is, realistically at least half of America) can see the surface-level story, without digging for specifics like we here always do, and reach their own conclusions. "Biden pushed for the removal of the prosecutor looking into Burisma? Sounds fishy." Ignorant, yes.

I agree completely: There is no evidence of actual corruption on the Bidens' part. That doesn't matter much to a lot of Americans because 1)They don't care enough to dig deep or 2)They just want their side to win by any means necessary.

 

[shuttlt]

it’s a private company anyway right? Whether or not they’re making bad hiring decisions is entirely up to them. Real question is what did Joe Biden do. And if the best you got is an email that Rudy Giuliani found in a water logged computer he got from a MAGA nut, well, LOL at you for believing that

If they have been fabricated, that's good. The Biden campaign can safely state that unequivocally. The denials I've seen up until now have been non-denial denials, but maybe I've missed them actually claiming the emails are fake?

 

[shuttlt]

As I very clearly said, I don't see any evidence that there was corruption on the Bidens' part. My point is that 1)It can, at the very least, create an appearance of impropriety which could have been avoided (and which was a concern for the Obama Admin at the time) and 2)Someone who is otherwise reasonable but not very well informed and/or partisan (which is, realistically at least half of America) can see the surface-level story, without digging for specifics like we here always do, and reach their own conclusions. "Biden pushed for the removal of the prosecutor looking into Burisma? Sounds fishy." Ignorant, yes.

I agree completely: There is no evidence of actual corruption on the Bidens' part. That doesn't matter much to a lot of Americans because 1)They don't care enough to dig deep or 2)They just want their side to win by any means necessary.

Are you including the quote from the second release of quotes from these emails:

New leaked emails claim to show that Joe Biden visited the Ukraine just over a month after a Ukrainian business executive asked his son Hunter to arrange for 'highly-recognized and influential US policy makers' to travel to the country.

Revealed on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the November 2015 email from Vadym Pozharskyi says that the visits were needed to 'close down any pursuits against the head of the firm' Burisma where Hunter Biden sat on the board.

During Biden's visit the next month, he successfully pressured Ukrainian officials to fire the prosecutor who was looking into Pozharskyi's business.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-asked-close-pursuits-against-head-firm.html

Weirdly Googling that quote returns almost no hits. It's as if it's not being reported.

It looks like the emails are starting to edge closer to Joe Biden. Maybe this is as far as it goes, in which case he'll likely be OK.

 

[dirtywick]

If they have been fabricated, that's good. The Biden campaign can safely state that unequivocally. The denials I've seen up until now have been non-denial denials, but maybe I've missed them actually claiming the emails are fake?

No you haven’t missed it. The Biden campaign hasn’t given this nonsense the time of day, rightfully so. It’s very apparent that it’s very stupid

 

[shuttlt]

You're still going there?

Sure. Hillary's emails were supposedly hacked and released by the Russians and as far as I'm aware we never found out that they had been altered. Maybe the laptop was stolen and dropped off at the store by a Russian in a Biden mask? I don't know or care. The question is whether the emails are genuine. If they aren't it seems like it would be really easy for the Biden campaign to prove. Maybe they are waiting until the right moment to do that and are letting him go all in on this? It's possible. What ever happens the next few weeks are going to be entertaining.

 

[wareyin]

Are you including the quote from the second release of quotes from these emails:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-asked-close-pursuits-against-head-firm.html

Weirdly Googling that quote returns almost no hits. It's as if it's not being reported.

It looks like the emails are starting to edge closer to Joe Biden. Maybe this is as far as it goes, in which case he'll likely be OK.

What I find weird is that despite several posters explaining to you that Shokin was not investigating Burisma, as well as the sources you yourself said you got your info from also telling you that, here you are repeating the claim.

 

[wareyin]

Sure. Hillary's emails were supposedly hacked and released by the Russians and as far as I'm aware we never found out that they had been altered. Maybe the laptop was stolen and dropped off at the store by a Russian in a Biden mask? I don't know or care. The question is whether the emails are genuine. If they aren't it seems like it would be really easy for the Biden campaign to prove. Maybe they are waiting until the right moment to do that and are letting him go all in on this? It's possible. What ever happens the next few weeks are going to be entertaining.

How do you prove a screenshotted email from someone else's account is false? Or did the "second drop of emails" have more than a picture of a single email?

eta: scrolling through that report of a report of a report that you linked to, not one email was from Hunter Biden, nor were any actual emails released. Yet you still fall for this?

 

[Tero]

Hunter Biden's computer is at the FBI. No it's at Rudy's attorney's office. And it's just the hard drive. Hunter left a 12 minute video of himself having sex while smoking crack on the laptop. And it's been found at a shop in Delaware. Hunter lives in California. Elena Baturina sent Hunter Biden 3.5 million! Or at least she sent the money to someone or some corporation that sounds like Hunter Biden.

Did they need to make up so much crap at NY Post and Foxnews? Simply posting the forged email might have done something.

 

[Stacyhs]

Presumably any change he would make to their image would be as a result of a perceived connection to Joe Biden? That feels like almost the definition of conflict of interest. In any case, if these emails pan out, we have Hunter introducing people from Burisma to Joe... so the suggestion is that they were getting more for their money than just reflected glory.

AIUI, there is no allegation of "people" being introduced. There is talk of one possible meeting in the future with Biden. A meeting which Biden's people say did not take place.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yep, we can easily see how Trumplethinskins will react (Total Devotion Syndrome).

Love it!

I wonder what the Trump cultists will do when Trump goes down in defeat after the election. I suppose go into defense mode when the state criminal charges start coming in. We all know Trump will either pardon himself or have Pres. Pence pardon him when Trump resigns at the last minute if all else fails.

 

[Babbylonian]

If they have been fabricated, that's good. The Biden campaign can safely state that unequivocally. The denials I've seen up until now have been non-denial denials, but maybe I've missed them actually claiming the emails are fake?

That they've been fabricated is obvious to anyone who can think. Officially declaring them such requires access to the liars who are releasing this garbage. That's why those with standing are simply waving the nonsense away without commenting substantively. Not only would commenting substantively lend credence to total lies but it would provide another angle of attack for the lying shills who keep wanting to promote the lies: "How can they say that the evidence has been fabricated if they haven't examined it?"

Attempting to converse in any sensible fashion with people intent on lying and fabricating evidence is a no-win scenario, especially if all the liars have to do is keep the ball in the air for a few weeks.

Fortunately, they have people like you to play make believe on the Internet and spread the lies around. Since Twitter won't ban every single scumsucker who promotes this BS (such as the President), the lies will spread no matter how obviously false they are.

 

[xjx388]

...obvious to anyone who can think.

Here's the problem.

---
I don't know that the fact they are fabricated is obvious, but the fact that they are completely unverified and unevidenced certainly is.

That won't matter to people who consider the NYPost a reliable source. That won't matter to the average person who doesn't dig beyond the headlines. That won't matter to Trump supporters who simply aren't going to vet the info themselves.

There are elements of the free press that are actively spreading misinformation without any journalistic integrity. The problem is how to convince our nation with it's sizable share of people who buy into conspiracy theories and love throwing mud around, true or not, that those sources are worthless. This distrust of the media has been successfully sown by sycophantic spreaders of pseudo-conservative slime (like Rush Limbaugh) since they started streaming their silliness over the airwaves decades ago. It's an engrained mindset of too much of America at this point.

 

[dudalb]

I always thought that even if it turned out to be true, given what has come out about the Trump admiistration it would have been a wash....screaming "Your're Another!" has nevr worked all that well.

 

[dudalb]

And with it clear there is not going to be any breakthrough with a virus vaccine before the election, the cnances of an October Suprise is now very low. It would have to be something out of the blue.

 

[Giordano]

To my knowledge it is not illegal to hire someone because they are related to an influential person. They don’t even need to have any other specific-related demonstrable skills. It is done in business and politics all the time. Typically the advantage is implied and diffuse. The idea that the hire will help the company achieve better access to the influential person is implied but is not usually explicitly spoken of. It need not be. The company just happens to value this person. Prove they don’t! Hunter may not be the tip-top hire but to imply he has zero appropriate skills is just wrong.

As far as I know neither is it illegal to say, “Hey, would you like to meet my Dad?” The so called smoking gun, even if an accurate depiction of the email (and there are huge holes in the story) is meaningless. Even stupid. So what if there was an invitation to meet his dad? One would have to show a direct reciprocity, a specific deal in exchange for Hunter’s hire. An important client meeting a partner’s family happens all the time in business.

 

[I Am The Scum]

In any case, if these emails pan out, we have Hunter introducing people from Burisma to Joe... so the suggestion is that they were getting more for their money than just reflected glory.

I want to make sure I understand your position as clearly as possible. What follows is my attempt at stating what you believe is the most "severe" allegation one can infer from the story:

Hunter Biden introduced one of his fellow business executives to his father.

If I'm wrong, correct me. Does the bold section understate your case?

 

[portlandatheist]

OK, I'm convinced. I will not be voting for Hunter Biden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you including the quote from the second release of quotes from these emails:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-asked-close-pursuits-against-head-firm.html

Weirdly Googling that quote returns almost no hits. It's as if it's not being reported.

It looks like the emails are starting to edge closer to Joe Biden. Maybe this is as far as it goes, in which case he'll likely be OK.

Are you still trying to make this ridiculously poor attempt at producing a fake story real?