late wrote:Spiro Agnew was a piece of work, but my pick would be President Cheney.
Corrupt is not the same thing as disagreeable. Agnew was corrupt; Cheney disagreeable, if you weren't on his side.
late wrote:Right wingnuts are saying a lot of things about the Bidens.
Very little of it is worth taking seriously.
Trump's main interest is in the small potatoes Ukraine thing, because Ukrainian pols did Hillary the favor of attacking Trump in the press--Teresa May was no different, but we have no evidence that it was prompted by Hillary as yet.
The Chinese story is a "big fucking deal" as Biden might put it. Placing $1.5B with the son of the VP of the United States whom you're negotiating with looks very much like a bribe. The fees off of that kind of money would be around $30M a year. It's no small chunk of change.
late wrote:But dramatic claims requite equally weighty proof.
That doesn't seem to be the standard when it comes to Trump. A baseless charge gets a special counsel investigation and $40M spent. Pissing off the president of the United States isn't necessarily a great idea.
quetzlcoatl wrote:Hunter Biden traded on his family connection with the VP to land a directorship of a Ukrainian gas company. He had no objective qualifications for such a post. We don't have to make any dramatic claims to understand this is plain corruption.
Well, what's indisputable is that there is a conflict of interest such that Joe Biden should have recused himself from duties involving Ukraine. He clearly did not. Did Joe Biden force his son's hiring? Did Burisima buy influence by hiring Hunter Biden? At least the public doesn't have all the details just yet. It certainly does not look good. However, Joe Biden getting the prosecutor fired and bragging about it when the prosecutor has filed affidavits saying that he was investigating Burisima sure sounds like trouble.
quetzlcoatl wrote:Democrats are going to do themselves no favors by ignoring how this looks to the average voter.
Assuming Trump was politically corrupt and then going after him and coming up with nothing is what makes it worse for them, because here you have direct indisputable evidence of a conflict of interest and some actions on Biden's part that looks like bribery and a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act--which I repeat, I have to study it every year as part of working for a publicly traded company.
quetzlcoatl wrote:Yeah Trump is totally about enriching himself and his family via public office - he doesn't give a crap about the emoluments clause.
So far, the evidence suggests that he's probably lost money as a result.
quetzlcoatl wrote:The public understands Democrats are going after Trump because he is a Republican, just as they understand Trump is trying to enlist Ukraine, Russia, and China for a similar purpose.
Trump ran on draining the swamp. They were attacking him to defend what they believe is their own turf. That's why they are petrified right now, because the Democrats went way too far to the left in the primaries and they look positively crazy. The campaign ads Trump could create just from what they've said in these debates would ensure his victory next year.
late wrote:As I said, dramatic claims demand rigorous proof, and that I have yet to see.
This is where the Democrats have fucked themselves: they have suggested for years now that we should just believe them and the Mueller report would provide the evidence. It never materialized. There is already incriminating evidence against the Bidens, and two very serious cases of conflict of interest which every lawmaker knows to avoid.
late wrote:Most Dems didn't want impeachment, despite the fact that Trump deserved from Day One.
Impeachment for what? Not being part of the neoliberal/neoconservative Janus cabal?