The Bidens: When Can We Start Calling It What It Is, Namely Bribery?

Geeko Sportivo said:
Evidence my ass!

When my Sister was dying of cancer, I talked on the phone with my son a lot, AND I NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS- and he was not giving me money!!
Click to expand...
maybe your son wasn't laundering bribes for you like Hunter was for Joe......did you hear about the wire that went directly from the Chinese to Joe?.......what do you think that might have been....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
maybe your son wasn't laundering bribes for you like Hunter was for Joe......did you hear about the wire that went directly from the Chinese to Joe?.......what do you think that might have been....
Click to expand...
Were all those flights with Joe just vacay?
And those weather reports...:laugh:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
maybe your son wasn't laundering bribes for you like Hunter was for Joe......did you hear about the wire that went directly from the Chinese to Joe?.......what do you think that might have been....
Click to expand...

No, I do not know about such a wire, tell us about the wire- BUT PLEASE SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE!

Thanks Post!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you comparing loans to bribes?.....
Click to expand...

LMAO sure tell me how the 2 B-B-B-BILLION Jared got thrown at him by the Saudis was a "loan". Even though the Saudi fund investment panel threw up all kinds of red flags about Jared's inexperience, they still gave him twice as much as they did Mnuchins firm even though he's got way more experience than little Jared.

I know there has to be a reason for that but I just Khasshogi'nt put my finger on it...
 
serendipity said:
Francis Menton cuts through the crap yet again, God love him.

The Biden family corruption scandal gets deeper with every passing day. Speaker Kevin McCarthy finally opened an impeachment investigation in the House last week, and now the first hearing in that investigation has been scheduled for September 28 before the House Oversight Committee.

So what is the potential impeachable offense? You will undoubtedly recall, in the context of the two Trump impeachments, the endless semantic contortions that took place trying to shoehorn Trump’s conduct into the vague constitutional catchall of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that might support an impeachment.

Now, with Biden, the conduct at issue goes by various euphemisms like “the family business,” “business dealings with foreign nationals,” “influence peddling,” “selling access,” or maybe just “corruption.” Are these impeachable offenses?

Well, how about “bribery”? In Biden’s case, there is no need for creative legal argumentation. Biden’s crime is right there in the list set out in Constitution Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And yet for some reason participants in the public discussion of the Bidens’ conduct seem remarkably reluctant to call a spade a spade. The reluctance spans both sides of the political divide, and even extends to the websites of the House of Representatives that discuss the ongoing investigations. Here are a few recent examples (out of hundreds):

From NBC News, May 10: “The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee mounted more attacks Wednesday against President Joe Biden and his family, alleging that relatives of the president engaged in business with foreign nationals. . . .”

From ABC News, September 14: “[O]n Capitol Hill, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy this week said he would initiate an impeachment inquiry against President Biden over his alleged role in his son's influence-peddling. . . .”

From the New York Post, August 14: “The evidence that President Joe Biden benefited directly from son Hunter’s influence-peddling operation just keeps mounting.”

From PBS, today: “Republicans — led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — have contended in recent weeks that Biden’s actions from his time as vice president show a “culture of corruption,” and that his son used the “Biden brand” to advance his business with foreign clients.”

Or even from the House Oversight Committee itself, September 13: “There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was involved in his family’s influence peddling schemes, including while he served as Vice President.”

“Bribery” is not a complicated crime to understand. It has its own section of the U.S. criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. Section 201. In case there were any doubt what this is about, the title of the section is “Bribery of public officials and witnesses.” Here are the parts of that section relevant to Biden’s conduct:

(b) Whoever—(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly . . . seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; . . .

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Read through that, and you find that the crime of bribery of a public official only has three elements: (1) “corruptly seek[ing], receiv[ing] [or] accept[ing] anything of value”; (2) “in return for”; and (3) “being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

Of the various instances of corruption involving Joe Biden, the facts relating to Hunter Biden’s service on the Burisma board of directors most closely track the specific elements of the bribery statute. As to seeking, receiving or accepting anything of value, Hunter was paid at least $3 million over several years for board service that involved minimal work and no visible contribution to the enterprise other than access to his father. The board service began in 2014, when Joe was Vice President, and immediately after Joe was named “point man” for U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine. After a corruption investigation into Burisma in Ukraine began in 2015, Burisma’s number one corporate objective became ending that investigation. On November 2, 2015 Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky stated to Hunter Biden in an email that Burisma’s “ultimate purpose” was to “close down” “any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [i.e., Burisma chairman Mykola Zlochevsky] in Ukraine.” Then, according to the Congressional testimony of Hunter Biden’s partner and Burisma co-board member Devon Archer, after a Burisma board meeting in Dubai on December 4, 2015, Zlochevsky and Pozharsky stepped out with Hunter to “call Washington.” A few days later Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kyiv, and, as he himself has admitted on a widely-viewed videotape, threatened to withhold a billion dollars of U.S. aid to the country unless the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired. And the prosecutor was fired.

In other words, the prima facie case of all of the elements of bribery is right there. It is what they call a lay down. Sure Biden has a couple of things he claims as defenses — mainly, that all the money went to his son, and that firing the prosecutor was official U.S. policy coming from people other than him. At this point those defenses look very weak, although maybe Biden can make something out of them.

But the fundamental point is that this is not situation of murky facts that somehow need to be contorted and shoe-horned into some obscure statute in order to make out a possible impeachable offense. This is a case where the prima facie case of a crime, and of a constitutionally enumerated impeachable offense, is right there in front of our eyes. And the crime in question is the main bribery statute.

It’s high time that everybody stopped calling Biden’s alleged wrongdoing by euphemisms like “influence peddling” or “foreign business dealings” — neither of which are terms specifically referencing an impeachable offense, let alone a crime. We should all start using the correct and obviously applicable constitutional and statutory term, which is “bribery.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...we-start-calling-it-what-it-is-namely-bribery
Click to expand...

You can start calling it bribery when you have some evidence. Not before.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
You can start calling it bribery when you have some evidence. Not before.
Click to expand...

Plenty of evidence if you're willing to see it, which of course you're not

Of the various instances of corruption involving Joe Biden, the facts relating to Hunter Biden’s service on the Burisma board of directors most closely track the specific elements of the bribery statute. As to seeking, receiving or accepting anything of value, Hunter was paid at least $3 million over several years for board service that involved minimal work and no visible contribution to the enterprise other than access to his father. The board service began in 2014, when Joe was Vice President, and immediately after Joe was named “point man” for U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine. After a corruption investigation into Burisma in Ukraine began in 2015, Burisma’s number one corporate objective became ending that investigation. On November 2, 2015 Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky stated to Hunter Biden in an email that Burisma’s “ultimate purpose” was to “close down” “any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [i.e., Burisma chairman Mykola Zlochevsky] in Ukraine.” Then, according to the Congressional testimony of Hunter Biden’s partner and Burisma co-board member Devon Archer, after a Burisma board meeting in Dubai on December 4, 2015, Zlochevsky and Pozharsky stepped out with Hunter to “call Washington.” A few days later Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kyiv, and, as he himself has admitted on a widely-viewed videotape, threatened to withhold a billion dollars of U.S. aid to the country unless the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired. And the prosecutor was fired.
Click to expand...
 
Mr.Badguy said:
LMAO sure tell me how the 2 B-B-B-BILLION Jared got thrown at him by the Saudis was a "loan".
Click to expand...

wasn't it?......I seem to recall demmycunts saying he couldn't get a loan anywhere except from the Saudis......now you want to say it wasn't a loan....why can't you idiots make up your fucking minds?.....
 
serendipity said:
Plenty of evidence if you're willing to see it, which of course you're not
Click to expand...

GorgeousMisguidedIrishsetter-small.gif


You call that evidence? You're not a lawyer, are you.
Well, you're going to be sorely disappointed if you think that's going to bring down Biden.
But then, you still think Trump won the 2020 election so your gullibility is on full display here.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
wait, do you have evidence none of it ended up in Joe's pocket?......please provide a link if you do.......
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on you stupid fucks.

Know what you have so far? NADA. ZIP. ZILCH.

Your strongest case is wishful thinking.

How did that impeachment hearing go today? Total laughable fucking disaster for you.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
GorgeousMisguidedIrishsetter-small.gif


You call that evidence? You're not a lawyer, are you.
Well, you're going to be sorely disappointed if you think that's going to bring down Biden.
But then, you still think Trump won the 2020 election so your gullibility is on full display here.
Click to expand...

Stop spouting bollocks, I do not think Trump won in 2020. So shut the fuck up, shit for brains. Oh and by the way I'm not a lawyer but the author of that piece namely Francis Menton is and very successful one at that.

Francis J. Menton, Jr. is a partner in the Litigation Department and Co-Chair of the Business Litigation Practice Group of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York. Mr. Menton specializes in complex and technical commercial litigation, principally contract and securities claims. He has a nationwide trial practice, and has tried cases in state and federal courts including Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Puerto Rico, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

Mr. Menton is the author of "New Opportunities for Defendants in Securities Class Actions," Engage (Fall 2007), "Can You Protect Yourself Against Identity Theft?" New York Law Journal (April 29, 2002), and "Top Ten Federal Government Efforts to Suppress Free Speech," Federalist Society Free Speech and Election Law News (Summer 2000, 1999, 1998). He also authored "Evaluating Claims Under The Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995," New York Law Journal (January 6, 1996).

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/francis-menton
 
Last edited:
serendipity said:
Francis Menton cuts through the crap yet again, God love him.

The Biden family corruption scandal gets deeper with every passing day. Speaker Kevin McCarthy finally opened an impeachment investigation in the House last week, and now the first hearing in that investigation has been scheduled for September 28 before the House Oversight Committee.

So what is the potential impeachable offense? You will undoubtedly recall, in the context of the two Trump impeachments, the endless semantic contortions that took place trying to shoehorn Trump’s conduct into the vague constitutional catchall of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that might support an impeachment.

Now, with Biden, the conduct at issue goes by various euphemisms like “the family business,” “business dealings with foreign nationals,” “influence peddling,” “selling access,” or maybe just “corruption.” Are these impeachable offenses?

Well, how about “bribery”? In Biden’s case, there is no need for creative legal argumentation. Biden’s crime is right there in the list set out in Constitution Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And yet for some reason participants in the public discussion of the Bidens’ conduct seem remarkably reluctant to call a spade a spade. The reluctance spans both sides of the political divide, and even extends to the websites of the House of Representatives that discuss the ongoing investigations. Here are a few recent examples (out of hundreds):

From NBC News, May 10: “The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee mounted more attacks Wednesday against President Joe Biden and his family, alleging that relatives of the president engaged in business with foreign nationals. . . .”

From ABC News, September 14: “[O]n Capitol Hill, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy this week said he would initiate an impeachment inquiry against President Biden over his alleged role in his son's influence-peddling. . . .”

From the New York Post, August 14: “The evidence that President Joe Biden benefited directly from son Hunter’s influence-peddling operation just keeps mounting.”

From PBS, today: “Republicans — led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — have contended in recent weeks that Biden’s actions from his time as vice president show a “culture of corruption,” and that his son used the “Biden brand” to advance his business with foreign clients.”

Or even from the House Oversight Committee itself, September 13: “There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was involved in his family’s influence peddling schemes, including while he served as Vice President.”

“Bribery” is not a complicated crime to understand. It has its own section of the U.S. criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. Section 201. In case there were any doubt what this is about, the title of the section is “Bribery of public officials and witnesses.” Here are the parts of that section relevant to Biden’s conduct:

(b) Whoever—(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly . . . seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; . . .

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Read through that, and you find that the crime of bribery of a public official only has three elements: (1) “corruptly seek[ing], receiv[ing] [or] accept[ing] anything of value”; (2) “in return for”; and (3) “being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

Of the various instances of corruption involving Joe Biden, the facts relating to Hunter Biden’s service on the Burisma board of directors most closely track the specific elements of the bribery statute. As to seeking, receiving or accepting anything of value, Hunter was paid at least $3 million over several years for board service that involved minimal work and no visible contribution to the enterprise other than access to his father. The board service began in 2014, when Joe was Vice President, and immediately after Joe was named “point man” for U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine. After a corruption investigation into Burisma in Ukraine began in 2015, Burisma’s number one corporate objective became ending that investigation. On November 2, 2015 Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky stated to Hunter Biden in an email that Burisma’s “ultimate purpose” was to “close down” “any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [i.e., Burisma chairman Mykola Zlochevsky] in Ukraine.” Then, according to the Congressional testimony of Hunter Biden’s partner and Burisma co-board member Devon Archer, after a Burisma board meeting in Dubai on December 4, 2015, Zlochevsky and Pozharsky stepped out with Hunter to “call Washington.” A few days later Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kyiv, and, as he himself has admitted on a widely-viewed videotape, threatened to withhold a billion dollars of U.S. aid to the country unless the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired. And the prosecutor was fired.

In other words, the prima facie case of all of the elements of bribery is right there. It is what they call a lay down. Sure Biden has a couple of things he claims as defenses — mainly, that all the money went to his son, and that firing the prosecutor was official U.S. policy coming from people other than him. At this point those defenses look very weak, although maybe Biden can make something out of them.

But the fundamental point is that this is not situation of murky facts that somehow need to be contorted and shoe-horned into some obscure statute in order to make out a possible impeachable offense. This is a case where the prima facie case of a crime, and of a constitutionally enumerated impeachable offense, is right there in front of our eyes. And the crime in question is the main bribery statute.

It’s high time that everybody stopped calling Biden’s alleged wrongdoing by euphemisms like “influence peddling” or “foreign business dealings” — neither of which are terms specifically referencing an impeachable offense, let alone a crime. We should all start using the correct and obviously applicable constitutional and statutory term, which is “bribery.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...we-start-calling-it-what-it-is-namely-bribery
Click to expand...

I have a greater problem calling it something about which I give a fat flying fuck.
Maybe it's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top