U.S. Politics

[Martin Weidmann]

The comparison to Trump is laughable.  Of course, Trump and his family have been in business their entire lives.  He has actual businesses around the world long before entering politics.  That is how he made billions during his lifetime.  It is not a crime to have a legitimate business that provides goods and services and to make money.  In contrast, Old Joe is a lifelong politician.  He has no business or service to provide except his influence as a high ranking member of the government.   His son also had no business except selling access to his "pop."  And even if your false premise were true that Trump engaged in some unlawful conduct, that would in no way exonerate Old Joe and Dirty Hunter from breaking the law.  Moral equivalency is not a defense.  In terms of evidence of shell companies, the House report includes a detailed account of the millions sent to Dirty Hunter and the shell companies he used to funnel that money to himself and his family including the "big guy."  Do you think that is a lawful way to conduct business?  Do you think receiving diamonds from China is a normal form of payment fpr legal services?  How many people do you know are gifted a $140K Porsche from a foreign businessman after meeting with his dad?  Nothing to see there!

The comparison to Trump is laughable.  Of course, Trump and his family have been in business their entire lives.  He has actual businesses around the world long before entering politics.

True, but he continued with those businesses after entering the White House and obviously used his position to make deals for himself as well as his family. Do you really think Ilana would have received those trademarks if daddy wasn't in the White House?

It is not a crime to have a legitimate business that provides goods and services and to make money.

What goods and services did Ilana Trump deliver for those trademarks and what did service did Jared Kushner provide for the $2 billion dollars he received from Saudi Arabia?

In contrast, Old Joe is a lifelong politician.  He has no business.........

Indeed.... and you can't prove that he ever had any kind of business.

His son also had no business except selling access to his "pop."

What Hunter had or not had is of no consequence for his father. As a lawyer Hunter doesn't need a business of his own to make money.

And even if your false premise were true that Trump engaged in some unlawful conduct, that would in no way exonerate Old Joe and Dirty Hunter from breaking the law.  Moral equivalency is not a defense.

True. But your problem is that you can't prove that Joe Biden engaged in any unlawful conduct. You can argue he did, but you are doing so without a shred of conclusive evidence.

In terms of evidence of shell companies, the House report includes a detailed account of the millions sent to Dirty Hunter and the shell companies he used to funnel that money to himself and his family including the "big guy."

The House report is full of unsubstantiated allegations based on hearsay and inconclusive documents.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that Hunter Biden did use shell companies and received millions. And let's even say that he did pay out some of that money to members of the family. In this scenario it would be Hunter Biden who may be doing something illegal, but nobody else. But there is no way that any sane person can argue that if Hunter gives money to his family members that those family members must somehow be involved in what ever Hunter was doing.

All your arguments and claims are allegations without solid evidence. It's the kind of stuff a drunk in a bar would say.

[Richard Smith]

The comparison to Trump is laughable.  Of course, Trump and his family have been in business their entire lives.  He has actual businesses around the world long before entering politics.

True, but he continued with those businesses after entering the White House and that's the problem. He used his position to make deals he never disclosed.

It is not a crime to have a legitimate business that provides goods and services and to make money.

What goods and services did Ilana Trump deliver for those trademarks and what did service did Jared Kushner provide for the $2 billion dollars he received from Saudi Arabia?

In contrast, Old Joe is a lifelong politician.  He has no business.........

Indeed.... and you can't prove that he ever had any kind of business.

His son also had no business except selling access to his "pop."

What Hunter had or not had is of no consequence for his father.

And even if your false premise were true that Trump engaged in some unlawful conduct, that would in no way exonerate Old Joe and Dirty Hunter from breaking the law.  Moral equivalency is not a defense.

True. But your problem is that you can't prove that Joe Biden engaged in any unlawful conduct. You can argue he did, but you are doing so without a shred of conclusive evidence.

In terms of evidence of shell companies, the House report includes a detailed account of the millions sent to Dirty Hunter and the shell companies he used to funnel that money to himself and his family including the "big guy."

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Hunter Biden did use shell companies and received millions. And let's even say that he did pay out some of that money members of the family. In this scenario it would be Hunter Biden who may be doing something illegal by using shell companies to receive millions. But there is no way that any sane person can argue that if Hunter gives money to his family members that those family members are somehow must involved in what ever Hunter was doing.

All your arguments and claims are allegations without solid evidence. It's the kind of stuff a drunk in a bar would say.

There is no law against someone who is elected president to continue to make money from his legitimate business.  Trump placed such businesses in a trust.  He also took no salary as president.  Again, though, Trump's situation has nothing to do with the crimes committed by Old Joe.   Your problem here is that you don't understand the law or accept the facts.  Dirty Hunter confirmed that the money was going to his "pop" but even if you refuse to believe the evidence, it is still a crime to use his influence to benefit his family members.  Imagine if government officials could avoid bribery charges simply by directing the money to their children or spouse and then having those family members send it to them.  LOL.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no law against someone who is elected president to continue to make money from his legitimate business.  Trump placed such businesses in a trust.  He also took no salary as president.  Again, though, Trump's situation has nothing to do with the crimes committed by Old Joe.   Your problem here is that you don't understand the law or accept the facts.  Dirty Hunter confirmed that the money was going to his "pop" but even if you refuse to believe the evidence, it is still a crime to use his influence to benefit his family members.  Imagine if government officials could avoid bribery charges simply by directing the money to their children or spouse and then having those family members send it to them.  LOL.

There is no law against someone who is elected president to continue to make money from his legitimate business.  Trump placed such businesses in a trust.

Correction; he said he placed them in a trust and then continued running them anyway. You don't think there could be even the slightest conflict of interest for a sitting President to continue running his businesses?

Again, though, Trump's situation has nothing to do with the crimes committed by Old Joe.

What crimes would that be? He hasn't been charged for anything, no evidence has been presented against him..... so what the hell are you talking about?

Your problem here is that you don't understand the law or accept the facts.

Coming from you, that's absolutely hilarious! It only shows that even the biggest fool can believe he is right and actually knows something! Thanks for the laugh.

Dirty Hunter confirmed that the money was going to his "pop" but even if you refuse to believe the evidence, it is still a crime to use his influence to benefit his family members.

Giving money to a family member (if that's what actually happened) isn't a crime. And there is no credible evidence that Joe Biden used his influence to benefit family members. No matter how often you repeat it, it still will be a nothing burger.

Imagine if government officials could avoid bribery charges simply by directing the money to their children or spouse and then having those family members send it to them.  LOL.

When did this happen? Who bribed who? Who directed who to send money to their children and who had family members send money to him? This entire thing is a made up narrative for which there is no evidence whatsoever. If there was evidence we would have seen it by now! It's spin masters at work... that's all.

[Richard Smith]

There is no law against someone who is elected president to continue to make money from his legitimate business.  Trump placed such businesses in a trust.

Correction; he said he placed them in a trust and then continued running them anyway. You don't think there could be even the slightest conflict of interest for a sitting President to continue running his businesses?

This is simply a lie.  Trump did put his business interests in a blind trust.  He complied with the applicable laws and there was governmental oversight of that process.  Apply your standard, though.  Was he charged with a crime for this?   No.   In addition, he took no salary.  If you want to be pedantic, he was required to take one dollar.  Contrast Trump's full compliance with the law and donation of his salary with Biden Inc.'s influence peddling scheme. 

[Martin Weidmann]

This is simply a lie.  Trump did put his business interests in a blind trust.  He complied with the applicable laws and there was governmental oversight of that process.  Apply your standard, though.  Was he charged with a crime for this?   No.   In addition, he took no salary.  If you want to be pedantic, he was required to take one dollar.  Contrast Trump's full compliance with the law and donation of his salary with Biden Inc.'s influence peddling scheme.

Apply your standard, though.  Was he charged with a crime for this?   No. 

No, he wasn't charged yet, but who knows what will happen in the future. Not every crime is prosecuted, but you must be a complete blind man not to see what is right in front of you.

Contrast Trump's full compliance with the law

Oh yeah, that's right... he complies with the law so much that he has four criminal charges against him and all sorts of civil litigation as well.

with Biden Inc.'s influence peddling scheme.

You mean the "scheme" that you can't provide any conclusive evidence for? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Compare the sheer number of court cases against Trump with the lack of any court case against Joe Biden.....   

[Richard Smith]

Apply your standard, though.  Was he charged with a crime for this?   No. 

No, he wasn't charged yet, but who knows what will happen in the future. Not every crime is prosecuted, but you must be a complete blind man not to see what is right in front of you.

The irony given that your defense of Old Joe was that he hadn't been charged.  And again, how many families received millions from foreign sources including payment in diamonds and cars while having no legitimate business or service to offer?  How many families funnel such money through a series of shell companies?  Nothing to see there - right?  But "who knows what will happen in the future"?

[Martin Weidmann]

The irony given that your defense of Old Joe was that he hadn't been charged.  And again, how many families received millions from foreign sources including payment in diamonds and cars while having no legitimate business or service to offer?  How many families funnel such money through a series of shell companies?  Nothing to see there - right?  But "who knows what will happen in the future"?

Again, how many fools make questional allegations based on conjecture and innuendo?

The irony given that your defense of Old Joe was that he hadn't been charged.

Another false strawman. My defense of Joe Biden isn't that he hasn't been charged. My defense of his is that there isn't a shred of evidence against him, but feel free to prove me wrong.

As per usual, all you are doing is making wild assumptions for which you have zero evidence.