Question for the Hunter Biden experts

Of the 2 most likely major party presidential candidates for 2024, which one had a Chinese bank account?

 

Rick, we need to reinstitute the military draft by drafting everyone who is 60-years old and over. That is about 75 million people. We need to then have them invade China. We will lose the war with China, but our problems with paying for Social Security and Medicare should be solved for the next 50 years or so. What do you think? I value your opinion.

 

You're saying that this really never happened?
President Admits Trump Tower Meeting Was Meant to Get Dirt on Clinton (Published 2018)
Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
Or that this really isn't credible?
G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia (Published 2020)
And then there is this finding:

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download
And let's not forget this performance by the Entertainer-in-Chief with the Orange Complexion in which he asked for the assistance of Russia


Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in
October and November.

 

Or which one regularly received rental payments from the Chinese on space that his company owned?
China Paid Trump Millions In Rent. Then He Left The White House

 

Look, just because he got millions of dollars from the Chinese doesn't mean he was getting paid by the ... oh, wait

 

Obama.

Trump has legitimate businesses open to all kinds of People all over the world. If Trump had something in his taxes that was even close to suspicious or irregular the commie Dems would have been all over it by now.

 

I googled "Obama" and "Chinese bank account" and this was the result.
Obama Mocks Trump’s Chinese Bank Account: ‘They Would’ve Called Me Beijing Barry’ (Published 2020)

 

For those with reading comprehension concerns!!!
Russian interference in the elections by the Russians for their benefits, does not equate to collusion by either of the political parties.
Interference=collusion. NOT!!!

 

Lol... I've seen this movie before... I know it's not exactly about China but it's appose to your silly suggestion.

WarGames (1983) ⭐ 7.1 | Action, Drama, Sci-Fi

 

What if the side they were interfering on behalf of knew they were doing so, didn't report it to the authorities, and actively encouraged it although did not coordinate directly? Sounds like implicit collusion to me.

 

For the love of God will someone please get through to these people that the perceived inability to prove a criminal conspiracy is not a finding of a lack of collusion? It's not that hard, people.

 

Problem is that wasn't proven!

 

So what would constitute collusion? Would passing internal polling data to them while they interfered on your behalf count as collusion, for example?

 

Polling data that they could pay any pollster directly to get? Hardly is collusion.

 

Okay, so sharing internal documents (which also indicates strategy of the campaign by the types of questions asked and where they were asked, which is why campaigns don't generally share this data) doesn't count. So what does?

 

It absolutely does count. Russia used that polling date to assist them in focusing their efforts. Why else give it to them...just an FYI? The poster you are interacting with (whom I have blocked) does not understand the concepts involved...at all.

That was the Pub's internal polling data and was not available to the general public, even for a fee, unless, of course, you were a Russian operative.

 

Why is it that every defense of Trump is some sort of technicality that moves the needle from criminal to merely highly unethical?

• They didn't actively collude with the Russians
• It's not illegal if the President does it
• He declassified them with his mind or if the President takes it then it's automatically declassified
• He didn't explicitly tell the crowd to break into the Capitol

None of those defend his actual behavior or actions. If the best case scenario in all of these is highly unethical, but not technically illegal, how on earth do so many people think that person should be President? I get it the first time around, but after everything we've seen? Mind-boggling

 

I know when the hatred for the orange man is so strong that every conclusion has to be the worst possible. I am not trying to be a supporter as much as I'm trying to be more objective.
To your points.
Didn't actively collude with Russia- so where's the problem?
Not illegal if he did- if he didn't collude then it's not illegal?
We are talking about a missing binder that just now 3 years later came to light, whether he declassified or not is not the question. Question is when did it actually go missing and was the Trump team even still in office?
He didn't tell crowd to break capital. Seriously!! you are going to hold him responsible for any actions of anyone that attends any of his events?

 

Maybe the more accurate term is attempted collusion, the primary example being the Trump Tower meeting. Although nothing substantive came out of the meeting it's rather obvious the purpose of the meeting was obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Russians strongly implied that they had. Since you apparently did read this when it was posted a couple of hours ago.
President Admits Trump Tower Meeting Was Meant to Get Dirt on Clinton (Published 2018)
And this certainly looks like collusion to me.
Trump campaign chief Manafort’s associate Kilimnik gave Russia 2016 election strategy, polling, U.S. says

• A longtime associate of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign chief Paul Manafort gave Russian intelligence agencies “sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy” during the election that year, the U.S. Treasury Department said.
• Manafort’s associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, “also sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” the department said Thursday as the Biden administration announced new sanctions on Russia, Kilimnik and others.

 

So, attempting to get political research on an opponent is illegal? You don't get anything, and you don't use anything but by gosh you tried so let's spend $50 million on proving that?