Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
guest_
· 5 years ago
· FIRST
It’s slightly more nuanced than that- and I would hope that in the aftermath of recent events like the Mueller investigation that we might be more sensitive to “innocent until proven guilty” and not jumping to conclusions based on drawing our own scenarios out? Biden admits and even brags in public speeches to placing the pressure that got that investigator fired. It’s a matter of record that many within and outside the Ukrainian government were upset with that prosecutor for not pursuing obvious cases of corruption. The timing of things- Biden’s son getting the job, the firing... a little too coincidental perhaps. But AFTER Biden was out of office the Ukrainian authorities failed to submit paperwork on time that was crucial to ongoing portions of the investigation. The investigation itself was split to two agencies within the Ukrainian government and not simply abandoned- in theory anyway....
4
guest_
· 5 years ago
.... money was paid from the Ukrainian gas company to a consulting firm. The firm paid out amounts ranging on average from $5,000-25,000 to Hoe Biden’s son. All of that is legal- and not so uncommon- that is a reasonable range for executive level bonuses or payments for services. The question of legality comes in the justification of those payments. There are legal stipulations surrounding such payments to high officers of a company. So the primary question is wether or not those payments were legally made as part of a compensation package, or were illegal embezzlement. If the payments were legal- then there would be no obvious motive for Biden to have tried to kill the investigation as his sons interests weren’t in danger. If the payments were illegal- there is motive but criminal action by Biden must still be proven.
3
guest_
· 5 years ago
So maybe- just maybe, we an put partisan bullshit asides? Maybe we can remember justice isn’t just for people we are politically aligned to or like- allow an investigation if one is merited by the facts, and reserve declaring or implying guilt until some guilt or even a crime is proven. At this point all we have is some facts that could imply a crime or could imply perfectly average and legal business dealings. It’s worth a look but the jury is ready to rule before a suspect has even been named and that’s kinda dangerous.
3
guest
· 5 years ago
And if that courtesy ever goes towards the Republicans then sure we can play nice. But we just had a legitimate coup attempt, so no.
▼
guest_
· 5 years ago
@guest- can you see the contradiction there? If you want someone to treat you a certain way- if you say “these guys are bad guys because look how they act...” then you do the exact same thing, how does it make it any better? “Because they did it first”? But- we can go back hundreds of years or more in politics and try and trace who “did what” first- what do you think these people will do next? The next time they’ll do this to you again and say it’s because you did it to them. It’s what adults get upset at children for when they fight. So be an adult and not a child if possible. If you don’t like having it done- don’t do it to others. At least if they keep doing it it makes it clear THEY are assholes and not that everyone is an asshole for doing the same things. Be better than the people you dislike or you’re exactly the same.
3
tanuki86
· 5 years ago
Fun substance indeed.
1
