What crime did Hunter Biden commit, and to what extent is Joe Biden involved??

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,435
8,231
136
Since there has been endless speculation and deflection in other threads discussing the Ukraine scandal and pending impeachment inquiry, I thought it prudent to have a separate thread discussing the facts related to Hunter and Joe Biden, Burisma, and the elder Biden’s crusade to get a prosecutor fired.

I’m also trying to give an opportunity for anyone to provide any facts/evidence that US or Ukrainian law was violated by either Biden’s actions.

As far as I can tell, the only thing Hunter is guilty of is being a troubled coke addict who was kicked out of the Navy and has dubious business credentials at best. At worst, he traded off the family name and perhaps benefited from nepotism. Odd that Trump would suddenly consider these ethics violations as serious crimes as long as his family isn’t involved.

Reposting a few timeline links to lay out the facts:


April 2014 – Hunter Biden joins Ukrainian firm Burisma

Joe Biden’s younger son, Hunter Biden, joins the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest private oil and gas extracting company in Ukraine, controlled by founder Mykola Zlochevskiy, who had served as a Cabinet minister under former pro-Russian Presidents Leonid Kuchma and Yanukovych. Both administrations had been suspected of corruption, and once they were ousted, successor administrations pledging reforms targeted previous officials, including Zlochevskiy, for investigation. Allegations against Zlochevskiy center on the funding schemes he used to form the company in 2002. But cases against him stall in each instance.

An American business partner of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, also joins the board. The company issues a press release about the Biden appointment in May (see below). The appointment draws criticism for the potential perception of a conflict of interest with Vice President Biden’s role as the White House’s point man on Ukraine [also in April, the vice president traveled to Kiev and discussed how the United States could help provide technical expertise for expanding domestic production of natural gas to counter Russia’s energy dominance]. News reports later in 2014 reveal that Hunter Biden had been discharged from the Navy in February for testing positive for cocaine (clearly just months before the Burisma board appointment).

April 16, 2014 – U.K. investigates Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy

The U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office blocks accounts of Burisma’s majority shareholder, Mykola Zlochevskiy. A British court conducts a hearing on Dec. 3-5, 2014, and unblocks the accounts in a Jan. 21, 2015 judgment, (full text), finding that none of the evidence “establishes reasonable grounds for a belief that his assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct in public office.” (In September 2015, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt heavily criticizes the Office of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in a public speech for not cooperating sufficiently with and even undermining the British investigation. See below.)

May 12, 2014 – Burisma Holdings issues a press release saying Hunter Biden has joined its board, and that he will be “in charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the company among international organizations.” The release cites his then-current positions as counsel to New York-based law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and co-founder and a managing partner of investment advisory firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, where he also served as board chairman.

May 25, 2014 – Chocolate and confectionary magnate/oligarch Petro Poroshenko wins the presidency in Ukraine in an election to succeed Yanukovych on a platform of turning Ukraine back to the West. Poroshenko previously had served as foreign minister and minister of trade and economic development.

June 7, 2014 – Petro Poroshenko takes office as president of Ukraine.

June 19, 2014 – The Ukrainian Parliament approves Poroshenko’s appointment of former law enforcement officer and member of Parliament Vitaly Yarema as prosecutor general.

Aug. 5, 2014 – Ukraine investigation of Burisma

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema opens an investigation of Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy on suspicion of “unlawful enrichment.” (The investigation is referenced in the January 2015 U.K. court judgment, which concludes that the Ukrainian probe might have been started as a result of a misinterpretation of the British account freeze.) Zlochevskiy’s American lawyer, John Buretta, a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, says in a 2017 Q&A on the Burisma website that a court in Kyiv ordered the case closed in September 2016 because no evidence of wrongdoing had been presented. While suspicions remain over how Zlochevskiy obtained his wealth and what happened to taxpayer money while he held public office, the British judge in the January 2015 U.K. judgment observed, “Allegations of corruption against political opponents appear to have been a feature of Ukrainian political life at this time.”

Oct. 14, 2014 – Ramping up Ukraine anti-corruption forces

Ukraine’s Parliament passes a law establishing the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), a priority of anti-corruption campaigners who’d helped lead the revolution and of the U.S. government (led by Biden) and other international backers of Ukraine. The bureau, which is to include a special prosecutor for certain corruption cases, was created in part because of the recognized ineffectiveness and corruption of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the country’s judiciary. The country’s anti-corruption plans also include a special High Anti-Corruption Court, which Poroshenko and Parliament slow-rolled until domestic and foreign advocates again exerted pressure over the past year. In fact, the U.S. and Europe required the Ukrainian government to fund NABU in exchange for financial aid. NABU’s early years are an uphill battle in the face of documented efforts by Parliament and the Prosecutor General’s Office to undermine its work.

NABU later becomes a target of Giuliani’s (see Aug. 14, 2016 item below).

Feb. 10, 2015 – Viktor Shokin takes office as Ukraine’s prosecutor general, replacing Yarema.

Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates Prosecutor General Shokin’s office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma

Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption. “Corruption kills,” Pyatt said in the address to the Odesa Financial Forum for business leaders. “It kills productivity and smothers inspiration. Ideas are lost in its shadow. Innovation and entrepreneurship lag under the weight of bribery, back room dealing, and bullying.”

While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus. In other words, Pyatt is critical of the prosecutor’s office for not aiding in investigations of Burisma’s owner, which was in line with Biden’s criticism that the office was blocking corruption investigations. Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy:

“We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky [cq], the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

Full text of Ambassador Pyatt’s speech.



Oct. 8, 2015 – U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland continues the drumbeat on the need for stepped-up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in testimony that “the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.” She continues, “That means it must investigate and successfully prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases, including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself.”

Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.

John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.”

Dec. 8, 2015 – Vice President Biden makes a speech to Ukraine’s Parliament urging the country to step up anti-corruption measures.

In a speech covered widely in news media, Biden implores Ukrainian lawmakers to move more quickly to fight the country’s “historic battle against corruption” and “make real the Revolution of Dignity.” (Many of the lawmakers themselves were former businessmen and suspected of corruption and therefore that much less interested in fighting graft.) He says, “The only thing worse than having no hope at all is having hopes rise and see them dashed repeatedly on the shoals of corruption…Not enough has been done yet.” Specifically citing Shokin’s Office of the General Prosecutor for lagging on corruption investigations, he continues:

“It’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform. The judiciary should be overhauled. The energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles — not sweetheart deals. It’s not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income. Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities. Every other democracy in the world — that system pertains.

Oligarchs and non-oligarchs must play by the same rules. They have to pay their taxes, settle their disputes in court — not by bullying judges. That’s basic. That’s how nations succeed in the 21st century.

Corruption siphons away resources from the people. It blunts the economic growth, and it affronts the human dignity. We know that. You know that. The Ukrainian people know that. When Russia seeks to use corruption as a tool of coercion, reform isn’t just good governance, it’s self-preservation. It’s in the national security interest of the nation ….

The United States is with you in this fight…We’ve stepped up with official assistance to help backstop the Ukrainian economy. We’ve rallied the international community to commit a total of $25 billion in bilateral and multilateral financing to support Ukraine. It includes $2 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and the possibility of more.

Yesterday I announced almost $190 million in new American assistance to help Ukraine fight corruption, strengthen the rule of law, implement critical reform, bolster civil society, advance energy security. That brings our total of direct aid to almost $760 million in direct assistance, in addition to loan guarantees since this crisis broke out. And that is not the end of what we’re prepared to do if you keep moving.

But for Ukraine to continue to make progress and to keep the support of the international community you have to do more, as well. The big part of moving forward with your IMF program — it requires difficult reforms.”

Full text of Biden’s speech.



Jan. 21, 2016 – Vice President Biden meets with Ukrainian President Poroshenko and discusses “the need to continue to move forward on Ukraine’s anti-corruption agenda,” according to a readout on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.

Feb. 11, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks with Poroshenko by phone. A U.S. Embassy statement said the two agreed “that it is essential for Ukraine to continue to take action to root out corruption and implement reforms.”

Biden later boasts about the pressure he exerted on Ukraine during that time to address corruption. In a Jan. 23, 2018, Q&A following a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, Biden touts his tough stance with Ukraine in 2016. He says he told Ukrainian leaders that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired Prosecutor General Shokin. President Trump and Rudy Giuliani have cited that boast repeatedly as proof that Biden admitted pushing for Shokin’s firing, even though Biden was calling for the prosecutor to be fired because he wasn’t pursuing corruption cases vigorously enough. In the CFR appearance, Biden makes the comments in the context of expressing his concern that Ukraine still was not getting tough enough on corruption. “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Biden continued, “So they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But … there’s now some backsliding.”

“The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practice,” the New York Times reported at the time.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Well you present a perfect defense OP for the Bidens. Biden's son may be a lowlife in business perhaps. If that were illegal then the President and most people in executive corporate positions would be imprisoned. That perhaps they should from a moral perspective does not make it a legal basis for any action

Defending Trump over this is flat out stupid.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,435
8,231
136
Simple answer. None. Ukraine already investigated and found nothing. Zip, zero, zilch, nada!

It’s important to understand the full context—did Ukraine already investigate Hunter Biden, or were they only focused on Burisma and its founder? I haven’t seen any confirmation that there ever was a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden or even an attempt to investigate him personally. All I’ve ever heard was that there never were any grounds to investigate him in the first place.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
12,014
9,618
146
Well you present a perfect defense OP for the Bidens. Biden's son may be a lowlife in business perhaps. If that were illegal then the President and most people in executive corporate positions would be imprisoned. That perhaps they should from a moral perspective does not make it a legal basis for any action

Defending Trump over this is flat out stupid.
If the Republicans were still the party of (perceived) morality, they'd have ammunition for Biden. As it stands, doesn't really look like they have a leg to stand on.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,696
2,054
136


"JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. "

Clear case of quid pro quo, compare this to the transcript of President Trump where nothing was demanded or required and no money was mentioned. In terms of Hunter the coke snorting criminal Biden it would take further investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luna1968

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
It’s important to understand the full context—did Ukraine already investigate Hunter Biden, or were they only focused on Burisma and its founder? I haven’t seen any confirmation that there ever was a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden or even an attempt to investigate him personally. All I’ve ever heard was that there never were any grounds to investigate him in the first place.

Why should there be any investigation of Hunter Biden to begin with when there is no indication of wrongdoing and in fact had been cleared officially?

Are you really going to do this OP? Seriously? What about the claim that you are a rapist? Have you been investigated for that? Also, do you still beat your wife?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
33,767
25,280
136


"JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. "

Clear case of quid pro quo, compare this to the transcript of President Trump where nothing was demanded or required and no money was mentioned. In terms of Hunter the coke snorting criminal Biden it would take further investigation.
Quid pro quo is only illegal if it is for personal benefit. What personal benefit was Joe looking for?
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,696
2,054
136
Well you present a perfect defense OP for the Bidens. Biden's son may be a lowlife in business perhaps. If that were illegal then the President and most people in executive corporate positions would be imprisoned. That perhaps they should from a moral perspective does not make it a legal basis for any action

Defending Trump over this is flat out stupid.
"may be a lowlife" Yeah, ya think?
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,435
8,231
136
Why should there be any investigation of Hunter Biden to begin with when there is no indication of wrongdoing and in fact had been cleared officially?

Are you really going to do this OP? Seriously? What about the claim that you are a rapist? Have you been investigated for that? Also, do you still beat your wife?

Hey, my views on this are pretty clear—Hunter Biden might be a privileged low-life but there is no evidence to date that he committed any crime or was even accused of any crime in Ukraine. I just thought it’s important to make that distinction—that *he* was never investigated because there wasn’t any basis for an investigation into him. If we accept that as fact, then it becomes a lot harder to believe Joe Biden had someone fired to protect his son!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
12,014
9,618
146


"JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. "

Clear case of quid pro quo, compare this to the transcript of President Trump where nothing was demanded or required and no money was mentioned. In terms of Hunter the coke snorting criminal Biden it would take further investigation.
Huh? He stated that Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk would take action against a corrupt state prosecutor in exchange for a loan guarantee, and they tried to renege on the deal. He told them the deal didn't stand if they didn't hold up their end, and you call that a quid pro quo? You don't interact with people very much do you?

You're very bad at this and no amount of whirling in the air is going to make this comparable to Trump's second attempt at manipulating a democratic election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126


"JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. "

Clear case of quid pro quo, compare this to the transcript of President Trump where nothing was demanded or required and no money was mentioned. In terms of Hunter the coke snorting criminal Biden it would take further investigation.


So your problem with Biden is that he didn't do anything wrong but was using a diplomatic tool and tasked by the President to address corruption in a nation the world had a stake while demanding a proper quid pro quo as it was in the interest of our nation?

Ok, that's your right but man is that just plain stupid. I seem to remember Trump withholding funds to other nations to get a desired behavior in the national, not personal interest. Note he wasn't brought up for impeachment then. When he decided to enlist an investigation into his political rival in his own self-interest in an election? My oh my.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
33,767
25,280
136
Huh? He stated that Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk would take action against a corrupt state prosecutor in exchange for a loan guarantee, and they tried to renege on the deal. He told them the deal didn't stand if they didn't hold up their end, and you call that a quid pro quo? You don't interact with people very much do you?

You're very bad at this and no amount of whirling in the air is going to make this comparable to Trump's second attempt at manipulating a democratic election.
I mean, technically it is quid pro quo, but the misunderstanding here is when quid pro quo crosses the line from legal to illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
12,014
9,618
146
I mean, technically it is quid pro quo, but the misunderstanding here is when quid pro quo crosses the line from legal to illegal.
If it was quid pro quo, it was on behalf of the US government and the Ukraine government, not some back-room deal between Biden and whomever. When I think quid pro quo, i think of off-the-books shit, not just an agreement between governments.

Watch out folks, I'm sure there's thousands of other quid pro quo agreements between various governments, we should investigate them all!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Hey, my views on this are pretty clear—Hunter Biden might be a privileged low-life but there is no evidence to date that he committed any crime or was even accused of any crime in Ukraine. I just thought it’s important to make that distinction—that *he* was never investigated because there wasn’t any basis for an investigation into him. If we accept that as fact, then it becomes a lot harder to believe Joe Biden had someone fired to protect his son!

Fair enough. It is amusing that others would hang Hunter for what he might do while defending a President which has done things like stiffing investors and not paying for services. If Hunter did a year for his sins then Trump would never see the light of day.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
12,014
9,618
146
Fair enough. It is amusing that others would hang Hunter for what he might do while defending a President which has done things like stiffing investors and not paying for services. If Hunter did a year for his sins then Trump would never see the light of day.
Ah but you're missing his true sin, being related to a Democrat.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
33,767
25,280
136
Pretty sure that state-to-state quid pro quo is also standard diplomacy.
It is standard for all negotiations.
If it was quid pro quo, it was on behalf of the US government and the Ukraine government, not some back-room deal between Biden and whomever. When I think quid pro quo, i think of off-the-books shit, not just an agreement between governments.

Watch out folks, I'm sure there's thousands of other quid pro quo agreements between various governments, we should investigate them all!
This is yet another example of conservatives attempting to defend action that they don't even understand at a fundamental level. They hear people accuse Trump of quid pro quo, don't understand what that means or why it is illegal in this specific context, and then find an example of legal quid pro quo to "prove" Trump did nothing wrong. Next up, I expect them to accuse us of using semantics games to defend our hypocrisy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
If it was quid pro quo, it was on behalf of the US government and the Ukraine government, not some back-room deal between Biden and whomever. When I think quid pro quo, i think of off-the-books shit, not just an agreement between governments.

Watch out folks, I'm sure there's thousands of other quid pro quo agreements between various governments, we should investigate them all!


All of diplomacy is based on quid pro quo. Everything. For anything to happen both sides want something in exchange. It could be a treaty, a trade deal, a defense pact, money, weapons or merely assurances of support, but it's all "this for that".
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,435
8,231
136
Fair enough. It is amusing that others would hang Hunter for what he might do while defending a President which has done things like stiffing investors and not paying for services. If Hunter did a year for his sins then Trump would never see the light of day.

It would be completely fair to question Hunter’s role in Burisma and his general character and fitness for office if he ever ran for public office. I would hope we’d hold him to a higher standard (ethics, moral character etc.) than just potentially criminal activity. I know we’re doing the exact same thing if DJT Jr or Eric ever run for office, or based on Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s proximity to the White House.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS