Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Devin Nunes Met with Ex-Ukrainian Official to get dirt on Biden

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Ohh, so whenever it fits you, doing business is legal and whenever it does not fit you, doing business is evidence of corruption even when doing such business is legal. And donating to the Clinton Foundation is legal too. Again, double standards of your reasoning with your broad statements.

    In contrast to your simplistic stance, my post is that doing business can be evaluated as worthy or not of an investigation based on the surrounding circumstances. And such circumstances may make an action which enface value APPEARS legal, being actually illegal because it is linked to some corrupt intend. And this can apply from doing business to firing an AG or an FBI Director.

    Also, the fact that donors want to influence Clinton or Trump or any politician is nothing new. The issue is how the recipients respond. And as I reminded you, Clinton was not even in the office in 2016 and in fact did not even contest Obama in his second 2012 election. In other words, she did not have the opportunity in 2016 to be engaged in any abuse of any office. The rest about when money stopped is just a silly piece of evidence.
    First again, you pull things out of thin air without support.

    Second, even if money donated to the Clinton Foundation went down after Obama or Trump won the election, this only shows the natural effect of people being unwilling to bet their money on the horse that came second. But again, the actions of those donors about how to legally spend their money for charity in a non-profit organization of Hillary's husband does not affect the evaluation of the candidate's actions . So, without transcripts or whistleblowers revealing Clinton's actions as a government official to use her office for personal gain, you have no case. And again, Clinton was not even a government official in 2016.
    On March 13 2016 Hillary boasted openly that she had the support of foreign governments for her candidacy, something which is illegal .
    She said : I am having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Trump .She gave the name of on who endorsed her publicly but refused to give the names of those who endorsed her privately .
    These endorsements were a quid pro quo .
    She also received money in 2016 from foreigners because these hoped that she would win the election and that their investments would yield.When she lost the elections, the money stopped .This was also a quid pro quo .
    Bill ( thus :SHE ) received also money in 2010 when she was Secretary of State :also a quid pro quo .
    If the wife of Pompeo would go to Moscow for a speech and would receive $500000, Schiff would say that this was a reason for impeachment .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
      On March 13 2016 Hillary boasted openly that she had the support of foreign governments for her candidacy, something which is illegal .
      She said : I am having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Trump .She gave the name of on who endorsed her publicly but refused to give the names of those who endorsed her privately .
      These endorsements were a quid pro quo .
      She also received money in 2016 from foreigners because these hoped that she would win the election and that their investments would yield.When she lost the elections, the money stopped .This was also a quid pro quo .
      Bill ( thus :SHE ) received also money in 2010 when she was Secretary of State :also a quid pro quo .
      If the wife of Pompeo would go to Moscow for a speech and would receive $500000, Schiff would say that this was a reason for impeachment .
      Look!

      I told you that repeating your original points with different words without addressing my counterpoints does not win the argument for you. As I said numerous times, Clinton was NOT a member of the government and therefore could NOT abuse his office in soliciting foreign help!

      And no, you have NO evidence that she received money as secretary of State in 2010. Do not confuse her husband's activities with her as a Secretary of State. Nor is there any whistleblower or transcript from within the Obama administration which indicates such quid pro quo connection or intend. It is you who tries to create such connections based on logic that can be used to connect everybody to some qpq deal with a foreign power.

      By your logic, Trump's family PRO-PROFIT business deals in Russia and in all over the world provide a much more direct connection of qpq for Trump's decisions that benefit Russia or any other country (or their companies) compared to the connections you cite between Bill Clinton's activities while his wife was Secretary of State.
      Last edited by pamak; 05 Dec 19, 02:05.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • Bill was as Hunter: both were insignifiant persons without power and influence,but with a father/wife with power and influence ,and both received millions from suspect people . These suspect people did not care about Hunter of Bill but about Joe and Hillary . They wanted to bribe Joe and Hillary by giving money to Hunter and Bill .
        Following you,the Flotus would have the right to receive money from suspect foreigners : if Bill can receive millions,if Hunter can receive millions, why not the Flotus ?
        Julius Caesar divorced his second wife,because she was implicated in a scandal ,and he said : the wife of Caesar must be above all suspicions .
        The wife of a GOP senator from Oregon (Hatfield ) was criticized because she accepted money from a lobbyist .The wife of Nixon was criticized in 1952 because she had received a fur coat . Thus why should Hunter receive millions and why should Bill receive millions ?
        No double standards .
        And do not tell me that the Russian oligarchs gave Bill money because they liked him .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
          Bill was as Hunter: both were insignifiant persons without power and influence,but with a father/wife with power and influence ,and both received millions from suspect people . These suspect people did not care about Hunter of Bill but about Joe and Hillary . They wanted to bribe Joe and Hillary by giving money to Hunter and Bill .
          Following you,the Flotus would have the right to receive money from suspect foreigners : if Bill can receive millions,if Hunter can receive millions, why not the Flotus ?
          Julius Caesar divorced his second wife,because she was implicated in a scandal ,and he said : the wife of Caesar must be above all suspicions .
          The wife of a GOP senator from Oregon (Hatfield ) was criticized because she accepted money from a lobbyist .The wife of Nixon was criticized in 1952 because she had received a fur coat . Thus why should Hunter receive millions and why should Bill receive millions ?
          No double standards .
          And do not tell me that the Russian oligarchs gave Bill money because they liked him .
          As I have said before not an American or you would know Flotus and Potus are considered one in the same when it comes to income. In the US a govt employee partner has limits on what they can do Also the appearance of wrong doing is enough for termination

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
            Bill was as Hunter: both were insignifiant persons without power and influence,but with a father/wife with power and influence ,and both received millions from suspect people . These suspect people did not care about Hunter of Bill but about Joe and Hillary . They wanted to bribe Joe and Hillary by giving money to Hunter and Bill .
            Following you,the Flotus would have the right to receive money from suspect foreigners : if Bill can receive millions,if Hunter can receive millions, why not the Flotus ?
            Julius Caesar divorced his second wife,because she was implicated in a scandal ,and he said : the wife of Caesar must be above all suspicions .
            The wife of a GOP senator from Oregon (Hatfield ) was criticized because she accepted money from a lobbyist .The wife of Nixon was criticized in 1952 because she had received a fur coat . Thus why should Hunter receive millions and why should Bill receive millions ?
            No double standards .
            And do not tell me that the Russian oligarchs gave Bill money because they liked him .
            This is how the current capitalist system works and if one goes after Hillary because of what HER HUSBAND earns or Hunter because of what he earns , then one can go against almost everybody who gets in one way or another money from foreigners, including every damn businessman out there! Criticism for ethical standards is different from what you claim.

            Trump was criticized for ethical standards because of how he handled his business after he became a president but this was NOT a reason for impeachment!
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by craven View Post

              As I have said before not an American or you would know Flotus and Potus are considered one in the same when it comes to income. In the US a govt employee partner has limits on what they can do Also the appearance of wrong doing is enough for termination
              And there are no limits on what the partner of a secretary of state can receive, especially if he works in the same field as the secretary of state ?
              Bill Clinton received $ 500000 from Russian oligarchs, not because he was a former potus,but because his wife was a powerful person = SoS .
              Is that not an appearance of wrong doing ?
              Hunter received $ millions,not because he was intelligent/qualified ( which he was not ),but because his father was a powerful person = VP .
              Is that not an appearance of wrong doing ?
              Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs do not give money away because they have too much money, they give money because they expect/know that their investments will increase their power/fortune .
              Russian oligarchs do not pay a former US president $ 500000 for a speech in which they are not interested .

              Comment


              • Comment


                • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                  And there are no limits on what the partner of a secretary of state can receive, especially if he works in the same field as the secretary of state ?
                  Bill Clinton received $ 500000 from Russian oligarchs, not because he was a former potus,but because his wife was a powerful person = SoS .
                  Is that not an appearance of wrong doing ?
                  Hunter received $ millions,not because he was intelligent/qualified ( which he was not ),but because his father was a powerful person = VP .
                  Is that not an appearance of wrong doing ?
                  Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs do not give money away because they have too much money, they give money because they expect/know that their investments will increase their power/fortune .
                  Russian oligarchs do not pay a former US president $ 500000 for a speech in which they are not interested .
                  um actually you obviously do not pay attention do ya Bill collects that amount of money for events since he started.

                  Matter of fact his first speaking engagements went for 1 mill I think

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by craven View Post

                    um actually you obviously do not pay attention do ya Bill collects that amount of money for events since he started.

                    Matter of fact his first speaking engagements went for 1 mill I think
                    Yep!

                    I can find Trump Jr, getting huge speaking fees just because his father is president

                    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...icle-1.3463335
                    .
                    Donald Trump Jr. to be paid $100,000 for speech at Texas university


                    Which university under normal circumstances would have paid that much money for a moron?

                    Trump Jr. declined to comment and spokeswoman said that he's "a popular public speaker who has been participating in speaking engagements domestically and internationally for over a decade."

                    His fee for delivering a speech has seemingly doubled since his father entered the White House, according to the Washington Post.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      Yep!

                      I can find Trump Jr, getting huge speaking fees just because his father is president

                      https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...icle-1.3463335
                      .
                      Donald Trump Jr. to be paid $100,000 for speech at Texas university


                      Which university under normal circumstances would have paid that much money for a moron?

                      Trump Jr. declined to comment and spokeswoman said that he's "a popular public speaker who has been participating in speaking engagements domestically and internationally for over a decade."

                      His fee for delivering a speech has seemingly doubled since his father entered the White House, according to the Washington Post.
                      Although I will say the goal of Jr speaking tour was a pretty good idea. Was suppose to be about civil discourse. I think or something along those line.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by craven View Post

                        Although I will say the goal of Jr speaking tour was a pretty good idea. Was suppose to be about civil discourse. I think or something along those line.
                        Ohh, sometimes these speaking fees are related to fund raising events for good reasons. And it is obvious that when one wants to attract more such donations (even for a good cause), he is willing to pay more to bring to the event a former president or the son of the president in anticipation that their participation will boost revenues.

                        On the other hand, it is clear that the speaker does not offer his service for free and cashes out his experience as a former president or cashes out his father's experience as president. And even charities are not immune from an attempt to create connections with important people. That applies as well for Clinton's non-profit Foundation and any speaking event in which Trump Jr participated, including those that were part of a good cause.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by craven View Post

                          um actually you obviously do not pay attention do ya Bill collects that amount of money for events since he started.

                          Matter of fact his first speaking engagements went for 1 mill I think
                          The fact remains that the husband of the US Secretary of State received $ 500000 from Russian oligarchs, not for a speech nobody was listeneing on,but because he was the husband of the US Secretary of State .While no one denies Bill the right to make money,it is not legal that he received money from people who needed the consent of the State Department to do lucrative business in the US .
                          The same happened in Ukraine with the son of Biden .
                          If after the war, a very close relative of MacArthur had received and accepted money from Japanese industrialists who risked to be expropriated, the scandal would be enormous and MacArthur would have to resign .The $ 500000 Bill received was not for his speaking engagement, but because his wife was secretary of state with a big influence .
                          It is the same for the billions for the Clinton Foundation :if Bill had not been potus,or if Hillary was not candidate and considered unbeatable,there would be no billions for the Foundation . And when Hillary lost, the money stopped, which proves that no one gave money for poor children,but to bribe Hillary or as recompensation for services by Hillary .The ruler of Qatar does not give money for poor children, but he donated millions to the Foundation .
                          Last edited by ljadw; 06 Dec 19, 14:50.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Ohh, sometimes these speaking fees are related to fund raising events for good reasons. And it is obvious that when one wants to attract more such donations (even for a good cause), he is willing to pay more to bring to the event a former president or the son of the president in anticipation that their participation will boost revenues.

                            On the other hand, it is clear that the speaker does not offer his service for free and cashes out his experience as a former president or cashes out his father's experience as president. And even charities are not immune from an attempt to create connections with important people. That applies as well for Clinton's non-profit Foundation and any speaking event in which Trump Jr participated, including those that were part of a good cause.
                            Clinton's Foundation is a profit foundation : the ruler of Qatar does not give money to a non-profit Foundation .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by craven View Post

                              Although I will say the goal of Jr speaking tour was a pretty good idea. Was suppose to be about civil discourse. I think or something along those line.
                              The difference is that Don Jr was paid by a university,not by foreign oligarchs .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                                The difference is that Don Jr was paid by a university,not by foreign oligarchs .
                                No difference...

                                Trump Jr. declined to comment and spokeswoman said that he's "a popular public speaker who has been participating in speaking engagements domestically and internationally for over a decade."

                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X