Semantics won’t change the reality that Ukraine and his son’s involvement will continue to be a political liability for Biden. What happened was a form of nepotism. He might not have directly handed him the position at Burisma, but your father being VP of the US carries enormous capital. Again, I realize this sort of thing happens all the time and it’s not illegal. It doesn’t mean it’s smart, fair or going to play well in 2020 when the anti-corruption narrative is so prevalent, though.
Who is trying to change the reality? And once again it's not semantics it was not nepotism. Don't why you have to keep using the word but ok.
But isn't this true of all the kids of Presidents and VPs and other famous/powerful people? If the parents didn't help them get those jobs, what are they supposed to do exactly? Tell the kids to turn down every job offer because it might be tainted? Does anyone think Don Jr or Ivanka or Kushner are where they are at solely on their own merits?
House Republicans, Fox News, the usual suspects.... This has the feeling of something that won’t go away. It’s a complex topic that’s uniquely attached to the ongoing impeachment drama. I don’t see how he puts this issue to bed easily. I hope I’m wrong about that, though. And I’m saying it’s nepotism because it’s a form of nepotism. You seem to be so needlessly focused on arguing semantics that you’re missing the point I’m making. I’m not making the argument anything illegal was done; I’m making the argument the optics are terrible for the VP. The problems for Biden are the potential for a conflict of interest and the mere appearance of impropriety. A lot of people have questions about Hunter Biden. And they’re valid given his background, the type of job he was hired for, his lucrative pay and about Burisma’s motivations for hiring him (pretty clearly meant to get in the VP’s good graces). I know neither Hunter nor the VP did anything illegal, and no investigation has suggested otherwise. But again: these are complex topics in a time where nuance and critical thinking are dead. People won’t bother to try to get the bottom of this on their own. Do you really think Republican voters are going to bother attempting to understand the difference between the leveraging Trump attempted against Ukraine versus the strings Biden pulled to get that prosecutor fired? Of course not. They’re just going to say he’s the corrupt one and call us hypocrites for supporting him. This is the world we live in. I’m not quite sure how to beat the opposition yet, but understanding how they think might be a start.
You can’t be serious. Joe Biden used his position not only to get Hunter a 50 to 80 thousand dollar a month “job” in the Ukraine that he did absolutely nothing to earn but he also used that position to have people fired who got in the way of that money and corruption, the Vice President of the United States. There is much more to the Biden story, eventually we may get to the bottom of a lot of it and I’m still waiting for the China shoe to fall.
There is no evidence of that. You saying it and repeating random made up GOP talking points doesn't change that. But if you do have a problem with that, it's openly known that Trump got his kids senior jobs in the White House and even overrode security clearances and the like to make it happen. The people that were fired were corrupt and fired in an anti-corruption campaign - push by the Obama administration, the GOP, the UK, the EU, and on and on. Nice try, though. You should read a little more: https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
I think you're sipping at the Kool Aid, just like Trump wants. Did Hunter Biden get the Burisma job because of his last name? Yes. Was he unqualified when hired? Probably. So what? Don't hear many people shrieking about how much money the Trump kids are making off their daddy's name. Burisma was investigated, Hunter Biden wasn't a part of that, a year later his father and other officials from our government and other governments had Ukraine fire its top prosecutor for not going after corruption. Putin turned this into a narrative somehow involving Ukraine and 2016 and the Repugs (Giuliani and Nunes with the help of Lev Parnas, Igor Whatever, and the aforementioned fired prosecutor) have been spinning their mad tale while Congressmen gladly take the bait.
Believe me, you're wasting your time. I made the mistake of broaching this subject with my Trumper dad. He's bought into the Biden thing hook, line, and stinker.
Not sipping the Kool-Aid, just a concerned Democrat that’s worried about a repeat of 2016 where a qualified candidate gets derailed because of “scandal” that never goes away. I see that sort of potential. Especially, given its ties to the impeachment saga. As long as that’s going on Republicans will attempt to pivot to this.
well this clears things up https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...senate-impeachment-trial-subpoena/2765329001/
Different “scandals“, these 3 were directly tied to a money laundering scheme in the Ukraine that Trump is getting impeached for uncovering.
lol. Dershowitz argues Joe took away the second article of impeachment by saying he wouldn't comply with a subpoena https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...joe-biden-is-right-and-so-was-president-trump excerpt: Democratic candidate presidential and former vice president Joe Biden, who I have long admired, is right in saying that he would refuse to comply with a Senate subpoena absent a court order. In making that statement, however, Biden has now taken the legs out from under the second article of impeachment voted on by the House against President Trump. That article accuses the president of “obstruction of Congress” for doing essentially what Biden said he would do, namely demanding a court order before he would comply with what he believes to be partisan subpoenas issued by one chamber of Congress. The chambers involved are different, as Trump has refused to comply with subpoenas from House Democrats, while Biden said he would refuse to comply with subpoenas from Senate Republicans, but the principles and legal issues are strikingly similar. Put another way, by echoing Trump, Biden has provided the president with an airtight defense to the second article. If Biden is not obstructing the Senate by his refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena, how could Trump be guilty of obstructing Congress by refusing to comply with the House subpoenas absent court orders? The shoe is now on the other foot and causing blisters for Democrats. It could also be uncomfortable for Republicans, who may have to acknowledge that Biden has a point. To be sure, there are some differences in degree. Trump is the president, whereas Biden is a private citizen running to become president. But that important difference favors Trump, who has the constitutional power to invoke executive and other presidential privileges. Biden lacks any such power as a private citizen. All he can argue in his case is that the Senate subpoenas are improper because they are motivated by partisan political considerations. This is not a particularly compelling legal argument.
Wow Dershowitz is a legal scholar and is failing to miss the key difference here. Biden is not relevant to these proceedings. There’s not a shred of testimony to be gleaned from Biden in determining Trump’s guilt or innocence. Trump is the defendant so of course his testimony is relevant
You have 0 proof of this, but yet you make the claim. You have tons of proof Trump committed a crime, but you deny it. Sounds like you have been brainwashed
