Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Stone Cold Crooked"

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

  • "Stone Cold Crooked"

    The Bidens: "Stone Cold Crooked" — Manhattan Contrarian

    October 06, 2019
    9-12 minutes


    • The phrase “stone cold crooked” was used on October 2 by President Trump to describe Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Watch the YouTube video here.
    • Meanwhile, in the Democratic-side press, almost all have been standing up for Joe Biden in the face of large profit-making ventures of his son and brother in countries where Biden as Vice President led U.S. diplomacy. Specifically as to Ukraine, the New York Times on October 5 called President Trump’s charges as to Biden’s misconduct “unfounded” and “wild.”
    • So which is it: Are Biden and his family “stone cold crooked,” or are such charges “unfounded” and “wild”?
    • This piece will look specifically at the facts regarding then-Vice President Joe Biden and the dealings of Hunter Biden in Ukraine.
    • My conclusion: the claim of “stone cold crooked” has been proved.
    As I have noted many times on this blog, a person has not just one, but potentially many motives for any given action that he takes. And the motivations or intent of one human for his actions are never fully knowable by others. Motivations are inside someone’s brain, and cannot be directly observed. Indeed, an individual himself may not fully know his own motivations.

    In courtroom litigation, motive or intent are often an issue, despite their not being directly observable. As the best-known example, the crime of murder requires intent to kill; without that, it’s only manslaughter, carrying a much lighter penalty. But because the intent cannot be directly observed, it must always be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. For example, the prosecution proves from direct evidence that the husband walked in on his wife and her lover in bed, pulled out a gun, and killed the lover. You can’t directly observe the motive inside the husband’s brain, but is anyone going to believe that this was an “accident”? You make the obvious inference of the intent to kill from the observable facts.

    Unlike motive or intent, many facts are directly observable — like the wife being in bed with the lover , and the husband pulling out the gun and shooting the lover. From such observable facts we infer the intent. So let’s make a list of established directly-observable facts in the Biden/Ukraine situation. Then we will consider what inference of intent may be drawn.

    Here are some observable facts, all from the public record:
    • Burisma is and has been a large company in the natural gas business, based in Ukraine. Going back to early 2014, the principal owner of Burisma has been a wealthy Ukrainian named Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky was an ally of then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
    • Yanukovych and his political party were closely allied with the Putin regime in Russia.
    • In February 2014, Yanukovych was ousted in something they call the “Euromaidan Revolution.” He fled Ukraine, and went into exile in Russia. At about the same time, Zlochevsky also fled Ukraine for Russia.
    • Also in [June] 2014, as a result of the revolution, a new man named Petro Poroshenko took office as President of Ukraine.
    • In March 2014 Vice President Joe Biden became the “point man” for U.S. relations with Ukraine.
    • In April 2014, Biden’s son Hunter Biden joined the board of directors of Burisma, at compensation of $50,000 per month (or $600,000 per year). (Some sources put Hunter’s compensation even higher.) Hunter Biden had no previous experience in the energy industry. The $600,000 per year is far more than companies of comparable size typically pay for directors. The younger Biden continued to serve on the Burisma board all the way into 2019.
    • In early 2015, the new government of Ukraine appointed Viktor Shokin as head prosecutor to investigate allegations of corruption in the country. As one of his actions, Shokin opened an investigation into Burisma and Vlochevsky (who continued as the principal owner of Burisma despite having fled to Russia).
    • In early 2016 Shokin was seeking to arrange an interview of Hunter Biden as part of his investigation of Burisma and Vlochevsky. (From John Solomon at The Hill, September 26, “Shokin told me [that at the time he was fired] he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm.”)
    • In March 2016, at the time that Shokin was seeking to arrange the interview of Hunter in the Burisma investigation, Joe Biden explicitly threatened Ukraine with the loss of $1 billion or more of U.S. loan guarantees unless they promptly fired Shokin.Joe Biden has openly and publicly bragged about using the threat of withdrawal of the U.S. loan guarantees to get Shokin fired. At this link you will find a video of Biden speaking at an event put on by the publication Foreign Affairs in 2018. Here is the key quote:So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor [Shokin] is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired.”
    • After Shokin was fired, the investigation of Burisma/Zlochevsky was dropped or at least suspended.
    I believe that each of those facts has been definitively established, and I have provided links where appropriate. If readers have information that any one of them, or any part of one of them, is incorrect, please post that information in the comments.

    The truth is that that list of facts would be, in any courtroom trial, sufficient proof that the Bidens are “stone cold crooked.” Why? Because they are easily sufficient to support an inference of corrupt motive. First, everyone would understand that the hiring of Hunter at a ridiculous premium rate of pay by a company that was almost certain to become a target of the new Ukrainian regime, and immediately after VP Biden took charge of U.S. diplomacy in Ukraine, could only have been because the owners of Burisma viewed it as protection money. And second, as to Joe Biden’s motive, the human instinct to protect and help a son is so universal and so powerful, no one is going to believe Biden when he says that he he didn’t do this for any reason having to do with his son, and he really, really had a different and completely pure motive for his action.

    Is it possible that Joe Biden in fact, deep inside his brain, had completely pure motives, and was only doing his best to root out corruption in Ukraine? I guess. But we can’t really know what is going on in someone’s brain. We can only make reasonable inferences from the facts before us.

    And on the facts before us, almost no one is going to believe Biden. He allowed his son to take a position at crazy pay that everyone would view as protection money, and meanwhile the dad would be making the calls about U.S. policy and U.S. aid in the billions of dollars with a direct effect on the son’s position. The whole reason that a high official should not get himself into such a conflict of interest position is that, when an important decision is made that just happens to massively help the son, nobody is going to believe that helping the son was other than the main motive. It’s like the husband in my illustration saying “After I walked in on my wife and her lover in bed, I just happened to take out my gun to clean it, and it discharged accidentally.” Sure, pal.

    Is there any possible defense of Biden that can even be offered? In today’s piece, the New York Times tries the simple assertion of its voice from authority, in the hope that someone is going to buy it. “President Trump ha[s] been hurling unfounded accusations about Mr. Biden, his son Hunter and their dealings in Ukraine.” The accusations are “wild.” “There is no evidence behind Mr. Trump’s claim that Mr. Biden intervened inappropriately with Ukraine to help his son.” What about the list of facts that I provided above? In what sense aren’t those “evidence”? You have to wonder if these people have any idea what “evidence” consists of. Also, the way things have been going over there at Pravda, their voice of “authority” is just about played out.

    Or consider this piece from October 2 at NPR. Key points made in Biden’s defense:
    • Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani “have not provided evidence of illegal actions. I have no idea what they are talking about there. The evidence I listed is all from the public record. And it’s irrelevant whether any particular action of Joe or Hunter Biden was itself specifically “illegal.” The question is whether their actions, taken as a whole, were corrupt. They were.
    • Biden’s call for the ouster of Shokin was not motivated by the desire to help his son or his son’s employer, but rather was motivated by “what was widely seen as [Shokin’s] failure to investigate corruption.”Really? And exactly how do you know what was “widely seen”?To be even slightly persuasive, they would need to provide a specific list of facts demonstrating wrongdoing by Shokin, which of course they do not do. Motive is proved by inference from observable facts. What possible facts could you have that would be stronger proof of motive than Biden’s desire to help his son keep a $600,000 per year part-time job?
    • Trump and his supporters “argue that Joe Biden wanted the prosecutor ousted to protect his son from being investigated. But there has been no evidence of wrongdoing. . . .” As with Pravda, what do they think “evidence” consists of?
    Anyway, this is just Ukraine. I can’t wait for all the facts about Hunter’s activities in China to come out.








    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/...e-cold-crooked

    Make sense, my friends on the left? [you can follow the main link to the original from which you can follow the sub-links].


    Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

  • #2
    Not sure why this post didn't show up for 17 hours, but here it is.


    Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

    Comment


    • #3
      hunter Biden can flee to Russia.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Thistle View Post
        So which is it: Are Biden and his family stone cold crooked, or are such charges unfounded and wild?
        We won't know unless they are investigated. I'm not going to call them crooked until I know more after an investigation, which the Democrats are trying to kill or derail.

        Comment


        • #5
          The reason that what Joe Biden is not criminal is because he is a Democrat
          “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates

          "The concept of a "Personal God," interfering with natural events,...." No criticism of this distorted idea of God can be sharp enough". - Tillich

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
            hunter Biden can flee to Russia.
            And sadly Trump didn't develop a hotel or resort there for him to stay in.


            Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              We won't know unless they are investigated. I'm not going to call them crooked until I know more after an investigation, which the Democrats are trying to kill or derail.
              What do you make of the legal standard that the Manhattan Contrarian lays out? Namely that you can't read minds but you can read actions, and in law you draw the strong inference from the visible actions. That when the husband says when his wife is found in bed with another man, I didn't mean to shoot him, I started cleaning my gun and it accidentally discharged toward the bed where he was laying with my wife; in that particular example, we believe the inference that he shot him deliberately, rather than the story, in spite of the fact that we can't read his mind?


              Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Thistle View Post

                What do you make of the legal standard that the Manhattan Contrarian lays out? Namely that you can't read minds but you can read actions, and in law you draw the strong inference from the visible actions. That when the husband says when his wife is found in bed with another man, I didn't mean to shoot him, I started cleaning my gun and it accidentally discharged toward the bed where he was laying with my wife; in that particular example, we believe the inference that he shot him deliberately, rather than the story, in spite of the fact that we can't read his mind?
                I'm not convinced your example can be applied to the Biden Affair.

                My gut instinct is that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma because the company hoped to curry favor with the Obama/Biden administration. This doesn't mean Obama or Joe Biden were in on that decision or were even consciously aware of it when it happened. So for this much, I am going to assume innocence until proven guilty.

                On the lesser charge of Conflict Of Interest, Joe Biden knew his son had gotten himself heavily entrenched in Ukraine via this employment, so daddy Biden should have notified Obama and stepped away from Kiev. He didn't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                  I'm not convinced your example can be applied to the Biden Affair.

                  My gut instinct is that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma because the company hoped to curry favor with the Obama/Biden administration. This doesn't mean Obama or Joe Biden were in on that decision or were even consciously aware of it when it happened. So for this much, I am going to assume innocence until proven guilty.

                  On the lesser charge of Conflict Of Interest, Joe Biden knew his son had gotten himself heavily entrenched in Ukraine via this employment, so daddy Biden should have notified Obama and stepped away from Kiev. He didn't.
                  I find the coincidence that Obama put Joe Biden in charge of two relationships, Ukraine and China, and the charges against Hunter correspond to those two countries alone, so far as we know, to be quite instructive.


                  Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Thistle View Post
                    Not sure why this post didn't show up for 17 hours, but here it is.
                    All the major news outlets, like CNN, have looked at it and said no problemo Joe.

                    Joe can't answer any questions on it because his face will turn solid red with anger and his heart may explode..
                    ​​​​​​
                    “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.”
                    Carl Sagan

                    God is love.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      We won't know unless they are investigated. I'm not going to call them crooked until I know more after an investigation, which the Democrats are trying to kill or derail.
                      If it is a criminal incident, it makes sense to push hard and obstruct justice and investigation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JamesTheLesser View Post

                        All the major news outlets, like CNN, have looked at it and said no problemo Joe.

                        Joe can't answer any questions on it because his face will turn solid red with anger and his heart may explode..
                        ​​​​​​
                        Oh, I had no idea he had a doctors note, requesting everyone not to accuse him regarding his involvement in his many, many, many scandals. In that case, I suppose I should take it all back?


                        Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Extremely biased source.

                          He thinks it's a "fact" that Shokin was planning to interview Hunter when he got fired, rather than that being something he made up (or agreed to after Giuliani made it up) in order to curry favor with Trump.

                          He also ignores the fact that anti-corruption watchdogs in the Ukraine, along with the European Union, IMF, some US Senators, and the State Department all agreed that Shokin was corrupt, was dragging his feet on the Burisma investigation, and needed to be removed.

                          Not that I'm telling you anything you didn't already know.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post
                            Extremely biased source.
                            By "biased" do you mean that he disagrees with you? Or do you mean that the NYT wouldn't have written it?

                            He thinks it's a "fact" that Shokin was planning to interview Hunter when he got fired,
                            Who would you ask if not Shokin?

                            rather than that being something he made up (or agreed to after Giuliani made it up) in order to curry favor with Trump.
                            To what end? If you had to put it into words, what's Shokin going to get out of this?

                            He also ignores the fact that anti-corruption watchdogs in the Ukraine,
                            Soros flunkies, yes.

                            along with the European Union, IMF, some US Senators, and the State Department
                            Never Trumper elitists, yes.

                            all agreed that Shokin was corrupt, was dragging his feet on the Burisma investigation, and needed to be removed.
                            On the ground of "evidence" no one has ever seen nor can they describe such "evidence."

                            Not that I'm telling you anything you didn't already know.
                            The fact you are not embarrassed to get into it is the only notable point.



                            Test all things; hold fast that which is good. --1 Thessalonians 5:21

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Thistle View Post
                              By "biased" do you mean that he disagrees with you? Or do you mean that the NYT wouldn't have written it?
                              I mean he's an extreme right-wing partisan source.

                              Who would you ask if not Shokin?
                              Maybe his deputy Vitaly Kasko, who resigned because of the corruption in the prosecutor's office.

                              https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukra.../30181445.html

                              To what end? If you had to put it into words, what's Shokin going to get out of this?
                              Having Trump backing him might just get him back into a position of power in Ukraine.

                              Soros flunkies, yes.

                              Never Trumper elitists, yes.
                              Because they somehow knew that Shokin being corrupt would years later be critical in an attack on Trump?

                              On the ground of "evidence" no one has ever seen nor can they describe such "evidence."
                              Meaning you haven't seen the evidence personally.

                              The fact you are not embarrassed to get into it is the only notable point.
                              Hey, I'm just as surprised that you are not embarrassed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X