Question for the Hunter Biden experts

Surprised that this hasn't been posted yet. It looks like Hunter has managed to flip the script on the House Republicans and MAGA nation in general.

Hunter denied the allegations against his father, in essence admitted that he behaved poorly and again offered to testify publicly before the House Committee. Just my opinion but it could backfire if Comer and Jordan try to have Hunter held in contempt considering that Jordan openly defied the January 6th Committee when they subpoenaed him while Hunter is still agreeing to testify in public before Comer's Oversight Committee. With the possible exception of loyal members of MAGA nation, the general public will probably accept Hunter's implicit rationale that videotaped private testimony would be easily subject to manipulation.

 

Trump pressured Ukraine to announce an investigation and got outed. Similar to his January 6th plans, the fact that his attempts were ultimately unsuccessful doesn't mean he didn't make the attempts.

 

Trumps ask was for the Ukrainians to publicly announce an investigation into the Biden’s - something he also pushed for the U.S. DOJ to do. He wanted the spectacle of the announcement first and foremost. Campaign fodder.

That was the ask in exchange for releasing the aide. I.e a clear quid pro quo with Trump leveraging national security dollars for his own personal political interest.

The fact the Ukrainian govt didn’t agree to it doesn’t make it not a crime. It was still a classic extortion. Politics is often give and take (which is why you often see the right wing talking point about Biden as VP threatening $1B Ukraine if they did not replace their Prosector), Trumps issue, and the key difference, is he was holding up U.S. interests for his own personal gain. His ask was NOT aligned with U.S. policy as Biden the VP stating the official position of the U.S. govt - a position Republicans supported at the time (but somehow have collective amnesia about now). Cultists can never see this because they view Trumps interests either as one in the same or as superseding U.S. interests.

 

They were in business before Donald was ever in politics and it doesn't make me quite as skeptical when these same people aren't deadbeat crack addicts.

 

You mean Ivanka, the shoe burglar?

https://www.fastcompany.com/3061224...eriously-hideous-shoe-to-copy-lawsuit-alleges

 

They may have been in business before Trump took office but they still received benefits when he was in office. At a bare minimum it creates the appearance of impropriety and in the case of Qatar's bailout of the Kushner organization there really is an apparent quid pro quo. After the Qatari Sovereign Fund signed the long-term lease on the Kushner building on 666 5th Avenue Qatar's designation as a state supporter of terrorism was lifted.
The troubling overlap between Jared Kushner's business interests and US foreign policy

 

So what you're saying is that apparent corruption is more acceptable when the beneficiaries do not have a drug problem in contrast to that of a cocaine addict who tried to create the false impression that he could influence policy?

 

So........ Quid pro que gets Trump a partisan impeachment, even though he didn't get anything in return, yet Hunter sells access to "The Smeller", which they got, but because the smeller didn't supposedly do anything, except access, and get paid, no problem?

 

If you attempt to rob a bank, but are unsuccessful, you are still guilty of a crime. Trump tried to extort Ukraine by withholding Congressionally approved aid illegally until Ukraine announced they were looking into fraud around Joe Biden. Trump didn't get anything in return because a whistle blower blew up the whole scheme before Zelensky announced the investigation.

If your son attempts to rob a bank and fails because he's whacked out on drugs, you aren't guilty of anything. Especially if your son is an adult over the age of 18. Joe isn't responsible for Hunter's actions, and if Hunter tried to cash in on his last name and sell access to his father that there is no evidence Hunter had in reality, how does that make Joe guilty?

We're not Klingons. The sins of the father or the son do not effect the entire family.

 

I wouldn't say "no problem" yet. I would say that we don't have specific allegations against Joe, and we don't know what evidence there might be to support such allegations. We don't even have articles of impeachment at this stage, although they're reportedly planning to vote to formalize the investigation as soon as today. My opinion is that House Republicans will strategically drag out the process to make sure it's pending well into next year and/or they may be concerned that they won't have the votes to file articles of impeachment. I'm willing to consider whatever they ultimately come up with.

 

I was in government for 25 years although on a local level I still had influence. If my son had ever once tried to use my influence to gain favors there would have been hell to pay and he knew it......Not so with Hunter and Joe.

 

Use your analogy. Did Hunter sell the family name for access to Joe? Yes. Joe Not guilty of son's deeds. Did Joe allow access to Himself with Hunter's business partners? Well, 20 some phone calls, golf pictures, carrying Hunter all over the world for him to see his business partners on AF2, is all that access? Well, yes! Did these business associates have effect on Joe's policy decisions? I'm not sure anyone can definitively say yes or no. But that was not what crackboy was selling, he was selling access and Joe certainly took part in allowing that. Did Joe get compensated for this access? Well, it depends on whether you believe that the 10 members of the Biden Crime Family that benefited from payments from shadow companies was of any value to Joe.
If I am the bread winner in my extended family and I have been carrying the financial burden for the family and now I don't have to because the family got paid from my crackboy son's business's, I would say I received a tremendous financial gain.

 

As usual you always make open and honest comments. I don't always agree with your conclusions, but you are always open for the facts. I firmly believe that we will find out just how compromised Joe is/was. That being said I respect that many haven't seen enough to make that conclusion and respect you that you are open to hear the facts to see if indeed he has been compromised. As with many others, we feel the dots are close enough and connected enough to at a minimum go forward with the inquiry. If not enough is found, then no impeachment. Unlike what they did to Trump, the full house is to vote on whether to have an inquiry. I do believe this is how it is supposed to work.

 

So, the fact that Hunter was selling access, and some did, does not count as "expectation to receive something"?

 

I have golfed with my father's business associates in the past. My Dad was never a golfer. I'm a total hack, but at least can I get around a course. Just because I associated with my father's business associates and there are likely pictures out there of such occasions, doesn't mean I ever talked business with them. In fact, we never did. Business was the last thing they wanted to talk about with a college kid just looking for a free round of golf on a course he couldn't normally afford.

There is testimony, on record, from a Hunter associate, that Joe never discussed business when the associate was around Joe. And today, Hunter made a public statement to that exact effect. So, unless you want to make Joe literally guilty by association, you need actual proof that Joe was involved in Hunter's business dealings. To date, there is nothing more than references to "the big guy," which again, proves nothing other than Hunter was likely peddling access to Joe. Access to Joe that Hunter may not actually had.

As for financial gain, it's not a crime to make money off a famous last name. It's certainly not Joe's responsibility if his brother and son did exactly that. If making money off a famous relative's last name is a crime then everyone who has ever appeared on the TV show "Claim to Fame" should be arrested immediately! But it's not a crime. And Joe isn't the first politician, let alone POTUS with a questionable family member or two. Jimmy Carter had brother Billy and his beer. And Bill Clinton had brother Roger, who ended up in jail if I remember correctly. But again, we're not Klingons, and family dishonor does not follow the entire family lineage.

So not only is there lack of proof Joe was involved in any of Hunter or James' business, there is lack of evidence Joe personally profited off any of these relationships. The big evidence is loan money paid back by James and loan money paid back by Hunter for a truck. Both 0% interest family loans that technically, Joe lost money on. There is also no evidence Joe ever paid back a quid pro quo to any Chinese interest. No questionable actions, and no whistle blower that said Joe was going to do X for a Chinese business in return for monies Joe made.

In the end, you have James Biden, who made questionable business decisions, some involving Chinese companies, that lead to Joe Biden bailing his brother out. And you have Hunter Biden, a known drug addict, who was likely selling the perception of access to his Dad, even though Joe himself wasn't involved, and didn't profit off any of it.

 

I don't know why anyone tries to have any sort of dialog with you. You are one of the worst kind of partisans. You contort, use analogies that are nowhere close to meaning anything, move the goal post, assume your side is the only virtuous one and no compromise. Not saying anything bad about you but you are not a 50-year government official with the title of former senator and VP after your name. I would imagine the line to mean you is rather short.
There is no evidence there ever was a loan. If there was, Joe had about zero chance of recouping the alleged loan until the Chinese stepped. Is this a benefit? The payback was access with potential for influence not actual influence and you have no issue with it I get it!!!
It's a team sport and you are all in on your team!! Just admit it!! I'll admit I am all in for the right and take the rights word 100 times over than what I hear from the left.

 

On the flip side, why should anyone on the left try to have a genuine discussion with anyone on the right about this? Any argument against Joe comes off as disingenuous at best considering this all peanuts compared to Trump's financial entanglements and family members who were serving in senior roles while also actively conducting business.

There's no point debating this with anyone who doesn't think Trump did 10x worse (hello foreign dignitaries staying at Trump hotel and Mar a Lago).

There's not even anything close to concrete. So far we have a check that says loan repayment and the conclusion being jumped to is that it wasn't for loan repayment but instead to influence Joe - I guess on the hopes he ran for Preaident and despite the amount being a pittance?

 

You are the one who is the worst kind of partisan. You are convinced there is some sort of "Biden crime family," that you look at petty crimes committed by Hunter, along with innuendo and circumstantial evidence and you are ready to convict Joe as the next Al Capone! You completely ignore the Archer testimony that Joe never had anything to do with Hunter's business, and as of yet, there hasn't been a single witness come forward to testify Archer was lying. And again, today, Hunter made a public statement that while he did wrong, his father had nothing to do with any of it.

I've asked the question time and time again, why no Chinese payments to Joe during his time as VP and his time as President? Don't you think it's odd that that Chinese business people can only get fooled when Joe has no real power? But when he has power, they don't pay for access? Or, does Occam's razor say the most likely answer is, Joe was never selling his influence to the Chinese?

What is not shocking is that Joe had money to lend after leaving office. We know from his tax returns, he made more money out of office then while VP. He got a $540,000/year job from UPenn, millions from a book advance, and made six figures a night for speeches. Nothing wrong or illegal with any of it. Maybe Joe didn't make big loans to family before 2017 because he couldn't afford it? But after 2017, the Biden's were among the 1% of earners.

I also see no evidence of anything James did that was illegal. Again, if profiting off a family's last name and fame is illegal, then we must arrest all "Claim to Fame" contestants immediately!!! Because that's exactly what they are doing! But again, this is not illegal. James made some questionable business dealings, but if he did something illegal, then arrest him. Having business dealings with Chinese businesses isn't illegal, and my company has a deal with some Chinese firms. Nothing illegal about that either.