Another post that generates an exasperated reaction. It isn't a bank account. A limited power of attorney isn't something someone has "over" another person or their finances. Eric Schwerin's resume is irrelevant. You could state his appointments to executive branch positions such as Senior Policy Advisor for International Trade in the Commerce Department and Director of Business Liaison in the White House and they'd be equally relevant. Meaning, they aren't. You just think calling him a lobbyist proves corruption or conflicts so his paying a painter must be code for dirty China money or something. That's also why you think calling Rosemont Seneca a global investment company is meaningful here. It seems you don't know enough to get what's wrong with your thinking, making you a useful idiot I guess.Markk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:11 pmNo, I am asking you to show how a investment firm that dealt in global investment skemes, with a president that is a lobbyist and has a degree in forighn relations can actually have power of attorney (your claim) over a sitting VP’s general banking account?honorentheos wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:52 amMarkk, asking that you accurately restate the argument in a way I agree with is how you show you understand it. If you don't understand it, you aren't dismantling it, you're shadowboxing around it.
Wow.Part of your argument sis that Joe was concerned because his son was fighting overseas…which I am sure he was concerned…just like 100’ of thousands other parents. Let alone wife’s and children of service men and women. Not to mention further those dealing with family members that never came home.
The point was that Beau Biden was deployed in 2009/2010 when the emails were authored, with it making sense that Hunter would be involved in managing Joe's assets after he took office as VP during the same period rather than his favorite and responsible son. What you said...yeah. It seems clear why these discussions rattle around unproductively I guess.
1) The outrage being expressed and aimed at Joe Biden is not actually being shown to involve Joe, but Hunter.I believe your central argument is and has been, that he has done nothing wrong and that he is completely separated from his family’s dealing and friends. But please do give me a short narrative of your argument and I will give you mine…
2) Otherwise ordinary matters that do involve Joe Biden are being misrepresented to attempt to create the appearance of scandal.
3) The purpose for this is not to actually uncover legitimate corruption. Rather it's politically motivated. As we saw in 2016, being able to imply scandal or that someone is being investigated can swing elections regardless of actual guilt.
4) Everything Joe is being accused of is mirrored by actually demonstrable incidents by associates of Donald J. Trump, his children, his businesses, and his political circle.
5) Russia has an incentive to manipulate American sentiment towards Ukraine and Joe Biden, and they engage in propoganda efforts to those aims.
Said correctly, sure. I agree.My basic argument is that the Biden family, primarily James, hunter, his sister have gained hugely on the Biden name and their connection with JB.
You make assumptions about the nature of those dealings and their legality which makes this unsupportable.I believe that there is a lot of circumstantial evident that points to Joe at the very least, knowing about all their dealings while they happen, and at the worse involved in these dealings.
You omit the possibilty you are being mislead to seeing corruption that isn't there, built from real issues around unsavory but not illegal profiting off Joe's name.in my opinion opinion Joe is dirty, but I concede he may just be ignorant of all this stuff going on around him in his family, but again personally I highly doubt that.
Exactly the political aim. No actual corruption need be proven to benefit the GOP in the midterms here or in 2024. Just creating the impression an investigation is needed is success. An actual investigation? All gravy.I believe all this is enough for a real investigation by a independent counsel (if that is possible now days).