He was a status symbol. Look, I have a son of the current US VP in my employment. A thing to brag to your oligarch friends, much like paying a celebrity to attend your daughters birthday party.
The idea that Zlochevsky would involve an American crackhead in any of his business dealings is preposterous. He was plied with hookers and blow and that was it.
Speaking of socialism, my God, look at this lineup of unapologetic socialists being vetted for government positions - AOC, Tlaib, Oma…wait a second… checks article … I stand corrected.
Sure. I know that status and face are a really big deal in those circles.
Just like having the approval of The Clinton Foundation proffered high regard with our Secretary of State by the same name, even if a country were to flagrantly act against all that the foundation claims to stand for. A nice donation and a sincere assurance that they wouldn’t do anything to end up on the naughty list, and Viola!
All is forgiven.
I see the whole scheme as a proxy strategy. Of course you can’t give money directly to Joe. But hey! There’s his son, just kinda hanging out and being, ya know, good at stuff. Like he should be a consultant of some sort.
Of course, to open an ameritrade account I had to sign a stack of documents in blood and swear to the holey moley that I was not acting in such a way, but when your dad is the VP and there are billions of dollars in trade to commence with, these things aren’t necessary.
Eh no. Again, I can’t speculate on the China story but “putting political pressure to stop an investigation” is not something a vory v zakone does in Ukraine, especially not by involving the Amerikantsy. That’s what I meant when I said the alleged narrative is peculiarly American.
If you have a problem, you resolve it by giving the prosecutor 10 million cash/buying him a villa in France/blowing him up/cutting off his head leaving his headless corpse on the beach as a warning*
*all of these things happened to various prosecutors.
YES. It’s illegal to use your public office for profit. And Joe Biden did that. He sold access to his office, via Hunter.
If you are going to continue to discuss this topic, can you, pretty please, with sugar on top, at least read the provided material in the OP? It’s all laid out, who did what, when and how.
We can then provide the additional info, as already done.
Even if he did sign it, it isn’t proof that the PDFs of photos of emails are correct. We need actual proof, not hearsay, or evidence that doesn’t support the claim that’s being made.
It’s lovely that the new topics of the debate are exactly the old topics of the debate. They are most definitely stacking the deck against Trump. His only option is to use the time to spell out the allegations against Joe and force him to answer it, ignoring yet another bombardment over covid, which has been debated to death.
Your articles here don’t meet my standards of evidence just by the title.
First article “source confirms”. This is hearsay.
Second article “emails 'identify Joe Biden…” Where are these emails. This is what someone else said the emails say. Not evidence.
Look I am not saying guilty or not guilty. Just nothing has been presented yet to be able to tell.
I have read some of the articles posted. They are not worth reading if they don’t provide proof of anything. Post something with actual proof, and I’ll read it.
Do what?! They don’t meet your standards? What the hell areyour standards? NYT tax returns with “sources” and no actual proof?
And I am referring to the original post with the original articles. If you want to know what the hell is being discussed, you need to know what those articles say. They are the source that broke the story.
We are talking about criminal corruption here, not if someone is bad with money. You understand that all of these articles are hearsay (or evidence that can’t be trusted) at this point, right?
Yeah, if the signature is correct it is proof that Hunter hired that guy to do computer work for him. It isn’t proof of corruption, or that the PDFs are representative of Hunter’s emails.
In regard to foreign policy being excluded from the debate, it’s a net plus for Trump. He has no foreign policy that he can explain and if he did it would change on the fly. He’s had some success here but his dick sucking of Putin, Kim and other demagogues he admires is loathsome and he’s better off not getting into it.
In regard to muted mics, it’s a level playing field. I think it will probably help Trump in the end because he won’t come off as as much of an ass if people can’t hear all the stupid shit he says. Anybody who enjoys Trump’s inane interruptions is going to vote for him no matter what anyway so there’s no harm done there.
Yeah, this will go over well. Trump can’t articulate what the weather is like outside, and yet he’s going to credibly lay out a convoluted plan that involves a laptop, his lawyer’s lawyer, a blind Trump supporter who uncovered a “scandal”, a non-meeting, and an FBI cover up because they had the laptop for months and months.
After Trump eloquently outlines these misdeeds that “everybody knows about”, his final, nail-in-the-coffin point will be laid bare:
“This is corruption because it’s illegal to use your public office for profit.”
Nope. Involvement of the Americans in anything dubious is a big no-no as they have this stupid “rules” of how businesses should be run.
For example, that’s why Manafort’s involvement was surprisingly above board all thing considered while he was doing PR/lobby work for the ousted President of Ukraine. Sure, he was a crook but he was American - and Americans are like children when it comes to corruption so you mustn’t involve them in the grown-up stuff.
