Hunter Biden Corruption - Important and Meaningful issue

[ABV 8.3%]

And to reiterate one last time: I think what Hunter and his Dad did in Ukraine while Daddy was VP is flat out wrong.

Impeachable, flat out wrong? This IS the question, is it not?

(please don't move the nets again, and talk dollar amounts, like less is more, more is less . In this case, less is more, means that Hunter "only" got X amount of dollars (less) but whataboutism sayz tRump conflict$ way more. so way worser. the worsest ever, perhaps the worsest President in the history of the world. )

[ABV 8.3%]

Show me the law preventing that.

How do you know that's not happening right now?

You don't. And if she is, what can we do about it?


Nothing. And Trump voters sure as heck wouldn't care, that much is clear.

Why is it just Trump voters not caring? When are your liberal fecesbook friends going to host nationwide protests , demanding ,NOW, that Congress passes legislation preventing politicians from making money for themselves and family, while being in office. When?

[ABV 8.3%]

$50k ....that’s chump change compared to the $1.5 Billion Hunter also received from China. Maybe Ivanka can get a sweet deal like that from Putin while working for the feds.

I have no clue what you're talking about here. I have no clue what you're talking about .

I've methodically shown that your complaints are incorrect. Exactly the passive aggressive tone I speak of. No need.

Either it's all wrong, or none of it is wrong. If you don't care about TrumpFamily conflicts of interest, stop complaining about Biden. I know, not addressed to moi, but, since daily log ins are required to chime in, after all, pretty sure he is complaining about the MSM infotainment's coverage of tRump, and LACK of coverage of Hunter , then, when his dad was one phone call away, as he said, from Presidential authority?? 2014, etc....and now.

And please don't say the 2 or 3 WashBoast "articles" meant it was covered. (hunter/BAD co2 company stuff ) comparatively

You can't get a little bit pregnant. yes, you can. If, prior to a single baby pregnancy, you had terms of 3 or 4 (happens often ) babies, that would be a lil bit pregnant, would it not? Comparatively?

[ggait]

And to reiterate one last time: I think what Hunter and his Dad did in Ukraine while Daddy was VP is flat out wrong.

Hunter Biden's gig at Burisma Holding was complete sleazy BS. $600k a year for a membership on a board that meets two times a year. Preposterous. Sleazy. Legal.

For a sanity check, you get paid about $300k in cash/stock to be on GM's board. That service entails 10 board meetings a year, plus another 10-12 board committee meetings, plus serving as a chair of a board committee.

Hunter is a DC lawyer lobbyist. So he makes money off of his name and connections. Of course that is what he does. Unfortunately, lots of folks do that. Pretty much all ex-politicians do that. It is just like Hillary's $150k speeches to Goldman Sachs or Billy Beer-- sleazy but legal. The Trump kids are certainly doing the sleazy every day, but in their case the legal is pretty questionable.

The claim that Hunter "got $1.5 billion" from China is laughable ridiculous.

He was one of several general partners in a PE fund that got a limited partner investment of that size from China. The fund overall was set up to receive investments from Asian investors. Docs say that Hunter had a 10% stake in the general partner interest of the fund, which is a small subset of what the limited partners' investment. His stake is apparently worth $400-500k. Not zero, but not in the same galaxy as billions. And since the fund was set up by several large Chinese money managers for the exact purpose of being invested in by Chinese institutional investors, the fund got invested in by -- surprise!! -- Chinese financial institutions.

So again, Hunter's grift was a moderate/modest amount that is sleazy but legal. Like Billy Beer or H-Rod's speeches or Trump Org operations.

#facts

[HooDat]

Preposterous. Sleazy. Legal.

The fact that it IS legal tells us a lot of what we need to know about the bill of goods we are sold by our representatives.

[youthathletics]

Preposterous. Sleazy. Legal.

The fact that it IS legal tells us a lot of what we need to know about the bill of goods we are sold by our representatives.

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Bidenn was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

[foreverlax]

Preposterous. Sleazy. Legal.

The fact that it IS legal tells us a lot of what we need to know about the bill of goods we are sold by our representatives.

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Bidenn was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

Better question - what are Javanka actually doing? We have no idea what they are doing, what they are saying and how often they come close t0 that line that should be black and white.

[HooDat]

Preposterous. Sleazy. Legal.

The fact that it IS legal tells us a lot of what we need to know about the bill of goods we are sold by our representatives.

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Bidenn was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

Better question - what are Javanka actually doing? We have no idea what they are doing, what they are saying and how often they come close t0 that line that should be black and white.

follow-on question - how are they different (other than being related) than any other advisor to the President? I don't remember what vetting process they did or did not go through. They are not official cabinet members are they? And if not they did not require Congressional approval - right? But plenty of people fall into those buckets. Are we singling them out because of nepotism?

[foreverlax]

Preposterous. Sleazy. Legal.

The fact that it IS legal tells us a lot of what we need to know about the bill of goods we are sold by our representatives.

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Bidenn was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

Better question - what are Javanka actually doing? We have no idea what they are doing, what they are saying and how often they come close t0 that line that should be black and white.

follow-on question - how are they different (other than being related) than any other advisor to the President? I don't remember what vetting process they did or did not go through. They are not official cabinet members are they? And if not they did not require Congressional approval - right? But plenty of people fall into those buckets. Are we singling them out because of nepotism? I sure am...optics matter.

[ggait]

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Bidenn was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

As a current full-time federal employee, probably not. Although she could ask for an ethics waiver.

It obviously is much worse moonlighting on stuff like this as an actual full-time member of the administration. You do see people (like the recently resigned Volker) who have part-time or unpaid federal gigs and where it is understood that they will have other private gigs.

But it is sleazy (or worse) for anyone to be making money off of their present or past federal position and connections. But at least most influence-peddling lobbyists themselves did get elected or otherwise earn the federal jobs they got. Hunter and Ivanka only have the qualifications of lucky birth. And you have to give Ivanka and Jared extra sleaze points for actually taking WH jobs for which they have absolutely no experience or qualifications for. They should both have restricted themselves (as Junior and Eric do) to making sleazy money as private citizens.

[foreverlax]

"Although she could ask for an ethics waiver"

First she would need ethics....

[youthathletics]

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Biden was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

As a current full-time federal employee, probably not. Although she could ask for an ethics waiver.

It obviously is much worse moonlighting on stuff like this as an actual full-time member of the administration. You do see people (like the recently resigned Volker) who have part-time or unpaid federal gigs and where it is understood that they will have other private gigs.

But it is sleazy (or worse) for anyone to be making money off of their present or past federal position and connections. But at least most influence-peddling lobbyists themselves did get elected or otherwise earn the federal jobs they got. Hunter and Ivanka only have the qualifications of lucky birth. And you have to give Ivanka and Jared extra sleaze points for actually taking WH jobs for which they have absolutely no experience or qualifications for. They should both have restricted themselves (as Junior and Eric do) to making sleazy money as private citizens.

Got it thank you. So the answer is a no, without an ethics waiver. So the fact Ivanka works for the Fed, actually handcuffs her from benefiting in financial gain via other country payouts....only until she is no longer in office. Then she can be called super sleazy afterwards because she earned sleaze point in and out of office.

[a fan]

And please don't say the 2 or 3 WashBoast "articles" meant it was covered. (hunter/BAD co2 company stuff ) comparatively

I'm sorry, but that's a non- complaint. You don't get to dictate how much something gets covered.

I'm NEVER happy with how much things are covered. No daily talk of out of control spending now the Trump is in office. But do they run a story every few months on it? Yes. And that's all you can ask.

You're implying that that's because of left/right bias. It's not. It's because viewers don't care. I do. Others don't. Who wins? The bulk of viewers, that's who.

So Hannity, laughably, is still pounding away on Hillary, even though she's been a civilian for years. Why? Because that news is that important? Heck no. It's because his viewers can't get enough of it.


And the best part of your complaint? This is America. Start your own press! And it's never been easier to get your word out.

[ggait]

Then she can be called super sleazy afterwards because she earned sleaze point in and out of office.

She can be called sleazy now because she took a federal job but did not divest (as is the norm). So she currently has any number of conflicts and monetization and legal issues because she still owns and operates her pre-WH businesses.

Once she leaves office, then she'd be pretty similar to Hunter, Eric and Junior.

[MDlaxfan76]

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Biden was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

As a current full-time federal employee, probably not. Although she could ask for an ethics waiver.

It obviously is much worse moonlighting on stuff like this as an actual full-time member of the administration. You do see people (like the recently resigned Volker) who have part-time or unpaid federal gigs and where it is understood that they will have other private gigs.

But it is sleazy (or worse) for anyone to be making money off of their present or past federal position and connections. But at least most influence-peddling lobbyists themselves did get elected or otherwise earn the federal jobs they got. Hunter and Ivanka only have the qualifications of lucky birth. And you have to give Ivanka and Jared extra sleaze points for actually taking WH jobs for which they have absolutely no experience or qualifications for. They should both have restricted themselves (as Junior and Eric do) to making sleazy money as private citizens.

Got it thank you. So the answer is a no, without an ethics waiver. So the fact Ivanka works for the Fed, actually handcuffs her from benefiting in financial gain via other country payouts....only until she is no longer in office. Then she can be called super sleazy afterwards because she earned sleaze point in and out of office.

I think ggait was answering the question assuming you meant whether she could 'legally' do it or not. His answer was that she'd need an ethics waiver. But that's only if you care.

She and Kushner are clearly doing all sorts of business overseas, without, at least to our knowledge, having been cleared by the ethics office. Probably illegal. Sleazy for sure. Right now.

But here's the problem: if you don't care what's ethical or illegal, you don't bother to ask...or you ignore their advice, nevertheless. This is much, much easier if daddy controls the Executive branch and the DOJ takes the position that the POTUS defines what is legal or illegal, prosecuted or not, under a 'unitary' theory of government...so, if daddy says do whatever you want, you do whatever you want. That's where we are with this reality.

Now, if you want to say that Hunter Biden shouldn't have taken the dough for little to no actual value delivered beyond some perceived imprimatur of legitimacy, I'm cool with that. Looks sleazy to me. Not illegal. But unseemly.

True of whole lot of folks.

[RedFromMI]

And please don't say the 2 or 3 WashBoast "articles" meant it was covered. (hunter/BAD co2 company stuff ) comparatively

I'm sorry, but that's a non- complaint. You don't get to dictate how much something gets covered.

I'm NEVER happy with how much things are covered. No daily talk of out of control spending now the Trump is in office. But do they run a story every few months on it? Yes. And that's all you can ask.

You're implying that that's because of left/right bias. It's not. It's because viewers don't care. I do. Others don't. Who wins? The bulk of viewers, that's who.

So Hannity, laughably, is still pounding away on Hillary, even though she's been a civilian for years. Why? Because that news is that important? Heck no. It's because his viewers can't get enough of it.


And the best part of your complaint? This is America. Start your own press! And it's never been easier to get your word out.

Squirrel!

Seems to be the current effort from the Faux News/OAN/etc.

Actually for the best writing about Hunter Biden and Ukraine, the following from the Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/i-w ... side-down/

[youthathletics]

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Biden was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

As a current full-time federal employee, probably not. Although she could ask for an ethics waiver.

It obviously is much worse moonlighting on stuff like this as an actual full-time member of the administration. You do see people (like the recently resigned Volker) who have part-time or unpaid federal gigs and where it is understood that they will have other private gigs.

But it is sleazy (or worse) for anyone to be making money off of their present or past federal position and connections. But at least most influence-peddling lobbyists themselves did get elected or otherwise earn the federal jobs they got. Hunter and Ivanka only have the qualifications of lucky birth. And you have to give Ivanka and Jared extra sleaze points for actually taking WH jobs for which they have absolutely no experience or qualifications for. They should both have restricted themselves (as Junior and Eric do) to making sleazy money as private citizens.

Got it thank you. So the answer is a no, without an ethics waiver. So the fact Ivanka works for the Fed, actually handcuffs her from benefiting in financial gain via other country payouts....only until she is no longer in office. Then she can be called super sleazy afterwards because she earned sleaze point in and out of office.

I think ggait was answering the question assuming you meant whether she could 'legally' do it or not. His answer was that she'd need an ethics waiver. But that's only if you care.

I know that, and acknowledged that. Which is why I sad what I did in red.

[MDlaxfan76]

ggait - as one of our local counselors, can Ivanka currently do the same thing as a federal employee that Hunter Biden was able to do w/ CHina and Ukraine or would she have to wait until she was no longer a federal employee?

As a current full-time federal employee, probably not. Although she could ask for an ethics waiver.

It obviously is much worse moonlighting on stuff like this as an actual full-time member of the administration. You do see people (like the recently resigned Volker) who have part-time or unpaid federal gigs and where it is understood that they will have other private gigs.

But it is sleazy (or worse) for anyone to be making money off of their present or past federal position and connections. But at least most influence-peddling lobbyists themselves did get elected or otherwise earn the federal jobs they got. Hunter and Ivanka only have the qualifications of lucky birth. And you have to give Ivanka and Jared extra sleaze points for actually taking WH jobs for which they have absolutely no experience or qualifications for. They should both have restricted themselves (as Junior and Eric do) to making sleazy money as private citizens.

Got it thank you. So the answer is a no, without an ethics waiver. So the fact Ivanka works for the Fed, actually handcuffs her from benefiting in financial gain via other country payouts....only until she is no longer in office. Then she can be called super sleazy afterwards because she earned sleaze point in and out of office.

I think ggait was answering the question assuming you meant whether she could 'legally' do it or not. His answer was that she'd need an ethics waiver. But that's only if you care.

I know that, and acknowledged that. Which is why I sad what I did in red.

yes, but you appeared a bit confused by whether that actually meant that Ivanka was constrained by this...she's obviously not been constrained by what is ethical, and probably as well by what is legal or illegal.

[foreverlax]

Joe, Hunter Biden seen golfing with Ukraine gas company exec back in 2014, photo shows

EXCLUSIVE: A photo obtained by Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" shows former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter.

Earlier this month, Joe Biden told Fox News in Iowa that he never discussed his son’s foreign business dealings with him.

Hunter Biden and Archer joined the Burisma Holdings board in April 2014.

“And now, he made a lie when he said he never spoke to his son,” Trump said. “Of course you spoke to your son!” (Says the Liar in Chief)

"The question is," Giuliani asked, "when Biden and Obama saw that article, about how the son was pulling down money from the most crooked oligarch in Russia, did Obama call Biden in and say, 'Joe, how could you be doing this?'" (Good question, but not even close to THE question)

Here's your smoking gun....Joe and Hunter play golf with Devon.


OMG!!

[a fan]

Why is it just Trump voters not caring?

Because Ivanka and Kush have much worse conflicts RIGHT NOW, and Trump voters don't care.

But they're going to pretend they're upset about Hunter's conflicts of interest?