You are generally saying that Biden had a conflict of interest, and that justifies Trump investigating Biden. I would like to see that brought to trial. I doubt it would hold up. (I am not a lawyer)Originally Posted by Peter1469
1) When Joe acted to influence Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, who's will was he carrying out? His own? Was it Joe's decision to withhold aid from Ukraine? No (He couldn't have withheld it even if he wanted. He was bluffing. He was just the mouthpiece of the United States. Joe Biden was not doing anything in the dark of night, behind closed doors like Trump did. He was transparent and had the backing of congress members and the President. At least 4 of the current Senators (some Republicans) sitting as jurors in the Senate trial were apparently co-conspirators as they co-signed a letter urging Ukraine to fire him. If this had been Joe's decision to talk them into changing the prosecutor. That might qualify for conflict of interest. But he didn't act alone. In addition to congressmen, The EU, The IMF, The US, and domestic anti-corruption advocacy groups wanted that prosecutor gone.
2) Furthermore. Unless I am wrong, Burisma was not even under investigation at the time this happened. So how can there be a sufficient connection between Joe's Financial interest and the Prosecutor?
3) Further still, Even if were true that Burisma was under investigation, firing the current prosecutor would not preclude their office from continuing their investigation/prosecution of Burisma under new leadership. So there would be no benefit to Joe by firing their current head prosecutor.
Trump's suspicions of wrongdoing did not center on Hunter's sweet deal. In the call, Trump only complained about the firing of the prosecutor. The terms of Hunter's employment only came into the media's focus as a peripheral issue. Proving that Hunter had a shady deal would therefore not show that the President was justified in asking for investigations. We can put that issue away. But let's not just yet...And we all know that the only reason Hunter was offered that $83K/mo job on Burisma's board was so Burisma had access to the Vice President of the US. That too is illegal. It violates the Foreign Corruption Acts statute and probably others.
So Trump was within his rights to look into it.
It's funny how you guys jump on my back when I say something like "assume" or "presume" but then you guys can say "we all know that the only reason..." The fact is that we do not know what his role was there. He is a Yale educated lawyer. But maybe he has some other expertise that none of us are aware. Or perhaps, Burisma just wanted the prestige of having a "Biden" on the board. Or maybe his insider view point as the the son of a VP provides useful info and insight into US politics. Maybe its some combination of all of that. Maybe its something totally off our radar. We don't know.
Understand that Oil and Gas companies are beyond insanely wealthy. 50K? 83K? even 100K? These amounts are petty cash for them. They could probably pay Hunter $1M/month and not blink just so they have the prestige of saying "we have a Biden on the board".
BTW I want to say I found it disgraceful that Joe bragged publicly about how he was able to extort a nation at war. Though I understand that he was doing it to protect our loan liability, the fact that he seemed to enjoy thumb screwing them in their time of need makes me shake my head. I don't think Joe is much classier than Trump.
Reply With Quote
