International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Bill Barr and his October Surprise (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346780)

Disbelief 16th October 2020 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogative (Post 13258801)
Nah, TDS sufferers are very predictable.

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

I Am The Scum 16th October 2020 05:23 AM

I'm gonna quote the super rad Parker Molloy on this one.
Quote:

I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to explain what the scandal is supposed to be and how these emails are evidence of it. Running headlines calling something a “smoking gun” does not make something a smoking gun. This is the same playbook as their “unmasking” nonsense.
Trumpers really have lost their minds over this one. It seems like, at most, Hunter Biden introduced a business associate to his dad. That's not a crime anywhere on the planet.

Armitage72 16th October 2020 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13259416)
Trumpers really have lost their minds over this one. It seems like, at most, Hunter Biden introduced a business associate to his dad. That's not a crime anywhere on the planet.


Apparently, they're still running with the idea that Joe Biden worked to get rid of the prosecutor in order to protect Bursima, and this was part of it.
You know, the exact opposite of reality.

JoeMorgue 16th October 2020 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13259416)
I'm gonna quote the super rad Parker Molloy on this one.


Trumpers really have lost their minds over this one. It seems like, at most, Hunter Biden introduced a business associate to his dad. That's not a crime anywhere on the planet.

Of course it would be a nothingburger even if true, but that's not the point from the Republican mindset.

Like I've said over and over all the arguments from the Republican side are minor variations on the same argument. "It's not that I'm not as bad as you think I am, but the people who are criticizing me are as good as they think they are."

So when the Right is caught doing something bad their defense is to find something thematically similar, even if totally different, someone on the Left did.

If right now footage hits CNN of Eric Trump decapitating a hooker FoxNews would not stop until it found footage of Hunter Biden giving a homeless woman a haircut and present it as "See! See! He's doing something vaguely thematically similar if you squint really hard!"

jerrywayne 16th October 2020 06:13 AM

"When Giuliani went to Ukraine in December to investigate Burisma and the Bidens, he interacted with “people tied to Russian intelligence,” the Washington Post reported Thursday night.

Intelligence officials feared Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who is now a Trump lawyer and freelance White House investigator — was being used to feed Russian misinformation to the president, four former officials familiar with the matter told the newspaper.

Their warning to Trump, one of the officials told the newspaper, was: "Do what you want to do, but your friend Rudy has been worked by Russian assets in Ukraine.”

Trump “shrugged his shoulders” at the warning, the former official said. “That’s Rudy,” the president said dismissively."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgdhp

johnny karate 16th October 2020 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogative (Post 13258801)
Nah, TDS sufferers are very predictable.

Ha ha... TDS. Such a savage burn. It’s funny because 218,000 Americans are dead.

shuttlt 16th October 2020 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 13259434)
Apparently, they're still running with the idea that Joe Biden worked to get rid of the prosecutor in order to protect Bursima, and this was part of it.
You know, the exact opposite of reality.

Do we actually know what the reality was? As far as I'm aware of the facts, Hunter was getting paid at least $50k per month by the Ukrainian company (Burisma) without having anything obvious to offer them other than the connection to his father who was handling the allocation of aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin was investigating Burisma. There were claims that Shokin was corrupt amid complaints that he wasn't making progress on the investigation of Burisma. Biden threatened to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired. Shokin was forced out in Feb 2016. The case against Bursima was dropped in 2017. In 2018 the decision to annul the case was overruled and the oligarch behind Burisma fled the country. Trump was then impeached over the phone call pushing Ukraine to investigate this.

Biden was accused of having a conflict of interest as his decisions directly benefitted the company that was paying his son $50k a month for no readily discernible reason. Biden claimed that there was no conflict because he never talked to his son about his overseas business. If these emails pan out, then we see in fact his son was connecting people within Burisma to Joe Biden, undermining Joe Biden's claims a bit.

I don't think it is exactly proved that Biden was doing anything corrupt here, but I don't understand your certainty that he wasn't.

The Great Zaganza 16th October 2020 06:42 AM

Surprise, Surprise!

Another Trump associate pleads guilty to illegal lobbying!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...erate-with-u-s

johnny karate 16th October 2020 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259479)
Do we actually know what the reality was? As far as I'm aware of the facts, Hunter was getting paid at least $50k per month by the Ukrainian company (Burisma) without having anything obvious to offer them other than the connection to his father who was handling the allocation of aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin was investigating Burisma. There were claims that Shokin was corrupt amid complaints that he wasn't making progress on the investigation of Burisma. Biden threatened to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired. Shokin was forced out in Feb 2016. The case against Bursima was dropped in 2017. In 2018 the decision to annul the case was overruled and the oligarch behind Burisma fled the country. Trump was then impeached over the phone call pushing Ukraine to investigate this.

Biden was accused of having a conflict of interest as his decisions directly benefitted the company that was paying his son $50k a month for no readily discernible reason. Biden claimed that there was no conflict because he never talked to his son about his overseas business. If these emails pan out, then we see in fact his son was connecting people within Burisma to Joe Biden, undermining Joe Biden's claims a bit.

I don't think it is exactly proved that Biden was doing anything corrupt here, but I don't understand your certainty that he wasn't.

Ah, yes. The old Conspiracy Theory Two-Step.

Profess ignorance about a topic: “Gosh, we don’t know much about what really happened”.

Then launch into your detailed conspiracy theory as if you’re just innocently spitballing off the top of your head.

shuttlt 16th October 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13259482)
Ah, yes. The old Conspiracy Theory Two-Step.

Profess ignorance about a topic: “Gosh, we don’t know much about what really happened”.

Then launch into your detailed conspiracy theory as if you’re just innocently spitballing off the top of your head.

I didn't claim to be ignorant about the topic. Pretty much everything I said can be found on the Wikipedia pages for Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch behind Burisma. Are any of the facts I claimed in my post controversial?

johnny karate 16th October 2020 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259493)
I didn't claim to be ignorant about the topic. Pretty much everything I said can be found on the Wikipedia pages for Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch behind Burisma. Are any of the facts I claimed in my post controversial?

How about the Republican-led Senate report that found no evidence of any wrongdoing? Did that happen to come up during your diligent research?

wareyin 16th October 2020 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259493)
I didn't claim to be ignorant about the topic. Pretty much everything I said can be found on the Wikipedia pages for Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch behind Burisma. Are any of the facts I claimed in my post controversial?

At least one of your claims is certainly not a fact. Shokin was in fact not investigating Burisma.

I'm surprised you missed that on the Victor Shokin and Burisma Wikipedia pages.

I Am The Scum 16th October 2020 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259479)
The Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin was investigating Burisma.

Citation, please.

JoeMorgue 16th October 2020 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13259540)
Citation, please.

Also Shuttit before you open your mouth "Prove I'm wrong" isn't a citation.

jerrywayne 16th October 2020 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259479)
Do we actually know what the reality was? As far as I'm aware of the facts, Hunter was getting paid at least $50k per month by the Ukrainian company (Burisma) without having anything obvious to offer them other than the connection to his father who was handling the allocation of aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin was investigating Burisma. There were claims that Shokin was corrupt amid complaints that he wasn't making progress on the investigation of Burisma. Biden threatened to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired.

Bottom line: Joe Biden was not the singular impetus in the firing of prosecutor Shokin. Ukrainian society orgs, the International Monetary Fund, the Obama administration, including the American Embassy in Ukraine, the European Union, foreign investors, etc., all wanted the corrupt Shokin out. So Biden wasn't performing a rogue operation in the Ukraine to help his son, but was delivering policy supported by Western and Ukrainian interests.

timhau 16th October 2020 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrywayne (Post 13259559)
Bottom line: Joe Biden was not the singular impetus in the firing of prosecutor Shokin. Ukrainian society orgs, the International Monetary Fund, the Obama administration, including the American Embassy in Ukraine, the European Union, foreign investors, etc., all wanted the corrupt Shokin out. So Biden wasn't performing a rogue operation in the Ukraine to help his son, but was delivering policy supported by Western and Ukrainian interests.

Yea, this. And the "claims that shokin may be corrupt" are kind of like "claims that Barry Bonds may have used steroids".

Armitage72 16th October 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhau (Post 13259567)
Yea, this. And the "claims that shokin may be corrupt" are kind of like "claims that Barry Bonds may have used steroids".


Wouldn't a more appropriate simile be "claims that Donald Trump may use spray tan"? :D

TellyKNeasuss 16th October 2020 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss (Post 13258555)
Another problem with the Hunter Biden laptop story: Hunter Biden was living in California at the time when the laptop was supposedly left at a repair shop in Delaware.

A citation for the claim that Hunter Biden moved to California prior to the alleged trip to the Delaware computer repair shop:

ps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

Craig4 16th October 2020 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259479)
Do we actually know what the reality was? As far as I'm aware of the facts, Hunter was getting paid at least $50k per month by the Ukrainian company (Burisma) without having anything obvious to offer them other than the connection to his father who was handling the allocation of aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin was investigating Burisma. There were claims that Shokin was corrupt amid complaints that he wasn't making progress on the investigation of Burisma. Biden threatened to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired. Shokin was forced out in Feb 2016. The case against Bursima was dropped in 2017. In 2018 the decision to annul the case was overruled and the oligarch behind Burisma fled the country. Trump was then impeached over the phone call pushing Ukraine to investigate this.

Biden was accused of having a conflict of interest as his decisions directly benefitted the company that was paying his son $50k a month for no readily discernible reason. Biden claimed that there was no conflict because he never talked to his son about his overseas business. If these emails pan out, then we see in fact his son was connecting people within Burisma to Joe Biden, undermining Joe Biden's claims a bit.

I don't think it is exactly proved that Biden was doing anything corrupt here, but I don't understand your certainty that he wasn't.

Even if Biden did apply pressure to aid his son, I don't care. If the choice is who is less corrupt, Biden still wins (and already got my vote and financial donations).

xjx388 16th October 2020 09:04 AM

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. Which, given the chain of events, a somewhat-less-but-still-reasonable interpretation is that there indeed was some corruption. I personally don't think there was, quite the opposite, in fact. I think there's plenty of evidence to show that Biden and the rest of the Western world wanted the prosecutor out because he wasn't pursuing obvious corruption, including that of Burisma.

But it's that problematic confluence of established facts that raises the question in the first place: Why was Hunter Biden on a board of company he had no experience with in a country he had no experience with? Because his father was in charge of Ukraine policy - there simply is no other answer.

The Great Zaganza 16th October 2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13259630)
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. Which, given the chain of events, a somewhat-less-but-still-reasonable interpretation is that there indeed was some corruption. I personally don't think there was, quite the opposite, in fact. I think there's plenty of evidence to show that Biden and the rest of the Western world wanted the prosecutor out because he wasn't pursuing obvious corruption, including that of Burisma.

But it's that problematic confluence of established facts that raises the question in the first place: Why was Hunter Biden on a board of company he had no experience with in a country he had no experience with? Because his father was in charge of Ukraine policy - there simply is no other answer.

What Hunter did or didn't do is the one side of the issue, and it is the next-to-irrelevant one: we are not voting for Hunter for President.

What voter should wonder is what Joe Biden did, and if what he did was according to the interests of the US and in accordance with State Department policy. Or if he put pressure to have US policy change to help his son's company.

Of course, we don't have to even ask these questions in the case of Ivanka and Jared, because we all know the answer.

wareyin 16th October 2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13259630)
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.

A person on the board of a company has no experience in that industry? Just like on virtually every other board of directors out there? No, say it ain't so!

JoeMorgue 16th October 2020 09:23 AM

The tenuous link between things the Trumpers have to make in order to maintain their whataboutism is getting pathetic.

xjx388 16th October 2020 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13259644)
What Hunter did or didn't do is the one side of the issue, and it is the next-to-irrelevant one: we are not voting for Hunter for President.

What voter should wonder is what Joe Biden did, and if what he did was according to the interests of the US and in accordance with State Department policy. Or if he put pressure to have US policy change to help his son's company.

Of course, we don't have to even ask these questions in the case of Ivanka and Jared, because we all know the answer.

Oh, I absolutely agree. It's amazing to me that people who push the "Biden corruption" narrative don't see the obvious corruption happening right now in Trump's family. I think it's the simple fact that people on the GOP side are much better about getting their narratives, true or false, across than those on the Dem side. I'm surprised that Biden and his campaign hasn't been more vocal on this particular point given the focus on his son and himself.

kookbreaker 16th October 2020 09:34 AM

Last I checked, Hunter Biden didn't have to have his security clearance forced through by Daddy so that he could work for Daddy when he would have been declared a security risk in any other circumstance.

Regnad Kcin 16th October 2020 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13258428)
This is like Watergate but if Nixon had left the tapes in his jacket pocket for dry cleaning except the tapes were just found in a random jacket pocket with "Nixon '76" pin on the lapel so they assumed they had to be Nixon's jacket oh and the tapes also didn't really exist.

Tricky.

xjx388 16th October 2020 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13259654)
A person on the board of a company has no experience in that industry? Just like on virtually every other board of directors out there? No, say it ain't so!

Yes, this is indeed common in order to leverage connections and hijack prestige (see Theranos for an example of when it can backfire spectacularly). What I'm saying is that in this case, the close connection to the then VP overseeing that country's political relations is especially problematic. I mean, what would everyone say if Michael Pence (Mike Pence's son) was appointed to the board of some Russian company owned by a corrupt oligarch?

turingtest 16th October 2020 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13259663)
Oh, I absolutely agree. It's amazing to me that people who push the "Biden corruption" narrative don't see the obvious corruption happening right now in Trump's family. I think it's the simple fact that people on the GOP side are much better about getting their narratives, true or false, across than those on the Dem side. I'm surprised that Biden and his campaign hasn't been more vocal on this particular point given the focus on his son and himself.

It's entirely possible that, far from those people not seeing the corruption in Trump's family, it's the reason for their pushing the "Biden family corruption" narrative.

Regnad Kcin 16th October 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss (Post 13258602)
YES!!! THAT'S IT!!! What a brilliant plan: Travel cross-country to drop off a laptop at a repair shop, don't tell the shop who you are and make sure that the owner has bad eyesight and can't recognize you, and don't ever retrieve the laptop with the expectation that the repair shop will wipe everything from the disk and sell the laptop to someone who lives 3,000 miles from you so that all traces of a secret meeting with a Ukrainian businessman will vanish forever.

Excellent chronicle, except I'd like to add that his cross-country trip was likely aboard a remote-controlled holographic plane under the direction of Dick Cheney.

jerrywayne 16th October 2020 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13259630)
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. Which, given the chain of events, a somewhat-less-but-still-reasonable interpretation is that there indeed was some corruption. I personally don't think there was, quite the opposite, in fact. I think there's plenty of evidence to show that Biden and the rest of the Western world wanted the prosecutor out because he wasn't pursuing obvious corruption, including that of Burisma.

But it's that problematic confluence of established facts that raises the question in the first place: Why was Hunter Biden on a board of company he had no experience with in a country he had no experience with? Because his father was in charge of Ukraine policy - there simply is no other answer.

The possible answer is mundane. Burisma was willing to pay Hunter's salary because having a Biden on the board would help turnaround its image and help attract needed investors.

shuttlt 16th October 2020 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrywayne (Post 13259727)
The possible answer is mundane. Burisma was willing to pay Hunter's salary because having a Biden on the board would help turnaround its image and help attract needed investors.

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.

Babbylonian 16th October 2020 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259742)
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.

Oh, is that how it "feels?" What a ******* crock. If trading on one's name constituted a conflict of interest...ever heard the name Trump?
Quote:

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.
It's been days and all that's been produced is an easily faked screenshot of a single e-mail and every aspect of the story strains credulity beyond the breaking point. In other words, this slander hasn't panned out. It's over except for the dishonest partisans who continue to pretend there was ever a credible story in the first place.

Beelzebuddy 16th October 2020 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259742)
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.

Are you familiar with Hunter Biden's credentials? He's led a flourishing career of his own, he's no Half Scoop.

Skeptic Ginger 16th October 2020 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13259630)
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. Which, given the chain of events, a somewhat-less-but-still-reasonable interpretation is that there indeed was some corruption. I personally don't think there was, quite the opposite, in fact. I think there's plenty of evidence to show that Biden and the rest of the Western world wanted the prosecutor out because he wasn't pursuing obvious corruption, including that of Burisma.

But it's that problematic confluence of established facts that raises the question in the first place: Why was Hunter Biden on a board of company he had no experience with in a country he had no experience with? Because his father was in charge of Ukraine policy - there simply is no other answer.

Do you have a clue what Hunter's qualifications actually were? He has a Yale law degree and had a number of years of experience in various positions and companies.

Vox has a good summary and they don't pull punches.

Hunter Biden, the black sheep who got Trump impeached, explained (There is sarcasm there, I believe.)
Quote:

When his dad became vice president, Hunter left the Amtrak board and instead got involved with a series of investment companies. As detailed by Ben Schreckinger in Politico, a lot of this work seems to have hinged on Hunter and his uncle James Biden sort of hinting around that the family connection to the vice president could help get things done and then not delivering. The Obama administration generally regarded Hunter as a kind of embarrassing family black sheep rather than a real scandal.
That's quite different from Biden getting his son the job.

Segnosaur 16th October 2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13259630)
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.

As another poster had suggested... it is not unusual for people to serve on the board of directors for companies they do not have experience in. In fact it is probably the norm. (I guess companies want to have directors with a wide variety of experiences.)

Now, lets consider Hunter Biden's experience, shall we? Before he joined Burisma, he:
- Graduated law school (So, decently educated)
- Became an executive for a financial organization
- Founded multiple businesses, including one that does venture capital and one that does investments/advisory
- Served on the board of Directors of Amtrak (after being appointed to the position by Bush, who was a republican the last time I checked.)

So Biden does appear to have significant qualifications to serve on the board of directors of Barisma.

Now, would he have been hired if he wasn't related to Joe Biden? Maybe, maybe not. I do admit that having someone even remotely related to the presidency would add a little prestige to the company.
Quote:

Why was Hunter appointed if not to curry favor with the VP, his father? It really doesn't make sense any other way.
Now, would he have been hired if he wasn't related to Joe Biden? Maybe, maybe not. I do admit that having someone even remotely related to the presidency would add a little prestige to the company, which would be more than enough justification to hire him, even if Joe Biden wasn't going to be influenced as a results. (Despite insinuations from the MAGAchuds that he was some unemployed loser living in Joe Biden's basement before he was hired by Barisma, Hunter certainly was more than successful by that point in his career.)

Skeptic Ginger 16th October 2020 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13259742)
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.

:dl:

You're still going there?

:dl: :dl:

The Great Zaganza 16th October 2020 11:18 AM

If some people hadn't made such a poor effort to launder the information through a fabricated story, there might have been some merit to investigate the content of the emails.

But this story isn't just Fake News, it is Fabricated News.

timhau 16th October 2020 11:44 AM

But... but... his emails!!

Dr. Keith 16th October 2020 12:02 PM

I don't think it is fair to compare Hunter to the Trump kids. Neither Barron nor Tiffany have carreers based off of their father's name, yet.

dirtywick 16th October 2020 12:21 PM

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.