The Biden Crime Family (a.k.a. "Biden is an honest guy"

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

The fungible money has been circulating in the Biden family for years. Comer and company might not ultimately make the case stick in court. But there's plenty of evidence of political influence pedaling going back years. Here, in case you chose to ignore it in WaPo, just another example:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...be/ar-AA1lCEki

Scruggs turned to Biden’s younger brother James, an old acquaintance who ran a D.C. consulting firm with his wife, Sara.

Scruggs paid the firm $100,000 in 1998 for advice on passing the bill, Scruggs said in an interview at his office here — the first time he has disclosed the amount.

“I probably wouldn’t have hired him if he wasn’t the senator’s brother,” Scruggs said. (Joe) Biden eventually backed the bill, which ultimately failed to pass Congress.

“Jim was never untoward about his influence,” Scruggs said. “He didn’t brag about it or talk about it. He didn’t have to. He was the man’s brother.”

Once again, you're getting out over your skis. From the article:

James and Sara Biden’s ties to Scruggs also later brought them to the periphery of a sweeping federal investigation, one that eventually led to the trial lawyer’s epic downfall in 2008 over a bribery scheme...

Neither James Biden nor his brother was charged or accused of wrongdoing in the case, which led to prison for Scruggs and several of his associates, including James Biden’s would-be partners.

You seem to be naively unaware of how lobbying works in DC and how people use whatever connections they have, family or otherwise (or their own past Congressional service) to wield influence on K St. If you want an example of highly profitable lobbying by a Congressional family member, look no further than Tommy Boggs, perhaps the most successful and influential DC lobbyist for decades. His father was House Majority Leader Hale Boggs and his mother was Lindy Boggs who took her husband's seat after his death in a plane crash. Together they served in Congress from 1947-1991 and their son was one of DC's most powerful lobbyist for many of those same years. Such lobbying is a constitutional right (First Amendment's right to petition government), even for family members of politicians.

What isn't a constitutional right is a corrupt quid pro quo, something very difficult to prove (refer to the overturning of VA Gov. Bob McDonnell's conviction and Sen. Bob Menendez's 2018 acquittal). In both of these cases, charges were brought after lengthy investigations for what appeared to be profoundly corrupt conduct, but resulted in a mistrial and subsequent acquittal (Menendez) and reversal upon appeal (McDonnell).

In the James Biden case you link to, a lengthy investigation occurred but did not result in any charges against James Biden nor any evidence of any corrupt quid pro quo by Joe Biden. If you actually gave a shit about such things, you would have been on the barricades as a result of Trump's own conduct during his presidency and most certainly that of Jared Kushner. Instead, we heard nothing from you.

I'm content to let the facts play out on this 25 year old event, something very unlikely to occur under a dishonest and disingenuous clown like James Comer.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Once again, you're getting out over your skis. From the article:

James and Sara Biden’s ties to Scruggs also later brought them to the periphery of a sweeping federal investigation, one that eventually led to the trial lawyer’s epic downfall in 2008 over a bribery scheme...

Neither James Biden nor his brother was charged or accused of wrongdoing in the case, which led to prison for Scruggs and several of his associates, including James Biden’s would-be partners.

You seem to be naively unaware of how lobbying works in DC and how people use whatever connections they have, family or otherwise (or their own past Congressional service) to wield influence on K S...

You seem to be naively unaware of how much most Americans HATE this how lobbying works. Rather, your post seems to justify it. It's even more gross when you consider how these are the folks who write our labyrinthian tax laws to advantage their contributors and themselves. How many of these congress-critters come to DC with average means but leave with riches beyond the dreams of avarice, and how much of that income is probably to evade taxation.

You also seem to be unable to parse the difference between influence and influence peddling.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You seem to be naively unaware of how much most Americans HATE this how lobbying works. Rather, your post seems to justify it. It's even more gross when you consider how these are the folks who write our labyrinthian tax laws to advantage their contributors and themselves. How many of these congress-critters come to DC with average means but leave with riches beyond the dreams of avarice, and how much of that income is probably to evade taxation.

You also seem to be unable to parse the difference between influence and influence peddling.

Just as you don't understand the difference between bias and deliberate lies, you also don't understand the difference between lobbying and bribery. Whether you like it or not, lobbying (i.e., petitioning the government for redress of grievances) is constitutionally protected. Bribery is not. You sure do have some strong opinions about shit you simply don't understand. You're in a hole but can't stop yourself from digging.

BTW, there is significantly more evidence of the Trump clan and Clarence Thomas actually taking real bribes than there is for Joe Biden (actually, there's zero evidence of Biden accepting bribes). Why zero interest from you in real examples of bribery and corruption?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Just as you don't understand the difference between bias and deliberate lies, you also don't understand the difference between lobbying and bribery. Whether you like it or not, lobbying (i.e., petitioning the government for redress of grievances) is constitutionally protected. Bribery is not. You sure do have some strong opinions about shit you simply don't understand. You're in a hole but can't stop yourself from digging.

And finally, either reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, or you're purposefully twisting my words to "win" an argument. Which is it?

First, I admit to a level of bias, so I understand exactly what that is. Deliberate lies are what you must resort to when you're trying to win an argument.

Lobbying is phone calls, emails, visits to a politician's office, and maybe a well-timed contribution to a politician's favorite PAC (usually their own) in an attempt to get the politician to vote a certain way, or propose or advocate for certain legislation. It's ugly, particularly when money starts changing hands, but in our current system, it is legal provided such contributions are disclosed and reported.

Bribery is when a constituent, say a lawyer looking to get a politician to vote a certain way, pays that politician - either directly or through a trusted third party - money that goes to the politician with the expectation of a quid pro quo. It is not reported as a campaign donation. It's likely not reported as income and if it is, the source of that income is likely not accurately identified on a tax return. This is likely not a legal transaction, and thus starts to look much more like a bribe than a lobbying activity.

See the difference? It's not that hard. If you need concrete examples, see the prosecution's case against Senator Menendez for additional information about how such an arrangement might work.

Now, does this look like something that was described in the article I posted when an attorney gave money to Joe Biden's brother, with the expectation that some or all of it would end up in Joe's pocket? Was there an expectation of a quid pro quo? If you answered yes to bother questions, then you win!

Originally Posted by finnbow

BTW, there is significantly more evidence of the Trump clan and Clarence Thomas actually taking real bribes than there is for Joe Biden (actually, there's zero evidence of Biden accepting bribes). Why zero interest from you in real examples of bribery and corruption?

Thank you for your opinion on this, Attorney Finnster. Your arguments, thin as they may be, are noted for the record.

Since you claim that Clarence Thomas was accepting bribes, can you point me to a reliable source that details his acceptance of the bribe, who offered it, specifically what it was, and specifically what the quid pro quo was?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Since you claim that Clarence Thomas was accepting bribes, can you point me to a reliable source that details his acceptance of the bribe, who offered it, specifically what it was, and specifically what the quid pro quo was?

And what planet do you live in dumbo?
So with Biden, allegations are proof to you but with Thomas who has been on the take years, you need hard proof.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

And what planet do you live in dumbo?
So with Biden, allegations are proof to you but with Thomas who has been on the take years, you need hard proof.

Do you understand the usage of the words "proof" and "evidence"? They're used interchangeably by politicians who should know better, but let's do better here.

So far, there's no "proof" that Biden was corrupt. There's quite a bit of evidence that some odd things were going on. But evidence is not proof.

Was there an appearance of impropriety that, at the same time Hunter was on the board of Burisma, his dad was flying to Ukraine ostensibly to meet with the Ukrainian government about how the United States could help provide technical expertise for expanding domestic production of natural gas? Sure there was, although I'm not sure that many folks here would agree with that.

Similarly, with Thomas, there's no proof that he was involved with bribery unless Finn can provide some direct evidence of it. Was Thomas' behavior ethically lacking? Yes, I think so.

There, does that clarify? Or do you want to throw more shit on the wall to see if it sticks?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Do you understand the usage of the words "proof" and "evidence"? They're used interchangeably by politicians who should know better, but let's do better here.

So far, there's no "proof" that Biden was corrupt. There's quite a bit of evidence that some odd things were going on. But evidence is not proof.

Was there an appearance of impropriety that, at the same time Hunter was on the board of Burisma, his dad was flying to Ukraine ostensibly to meet with the Ukrainian government about how the United States could help provide technical expertise for expanding domestic production of natural gas? Sure there was, although I'm not sure that many folks here would agree with that.

Similarly, with Thomas, there's no proof that he was involved with bribery unless Finn can provide some direct evidence of it. Was Thomas' behavior ethically lacking? Yes, I think so.

There, does that clarify? Or do you want to throw more shit on the wall to see if it sticks?

Seems like too much time on your hands.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Similarly, with Thomas, there's no proof that he was involved with bribery unless Finn can provide some direct evidence of it. Was Thomas' behavior ethically lacking? Yes, I think so.

There, does that clarify? Or do you want to throw more shit on the wall to see if it sticks?

Read the ProPublica articles including the most recent which provides the details of a quid pro quo arrangement in place for the past 20 years by which Thomas would be richly compensated by conservative donors for not resigning from the bench in pursuit of a higher income (i.e., I give you money and you don't resign from the court and you keep ruling for the conservative causes I support).

Call it what you want, but taking many millions over decades while rendering impactful decisions from a position from which you would have otherwise resigned were it not for the generosity of your interested patrons is some very shady shit. Of course you'll find some way to defend it.

We'll see if this ethically-challenged moneygrubber will recuse himself from any upcoming J6 cases considering his wife was a such a cheerleader for the Trump criminal conspiracy.

[Mark B]

Originally Posted by whell

You seem to be naively unaware of how much most Americans HATE this how lobbying works. Rather, your post seems to justify it. It's even more gross when you consider how these are the folks who write our labyrinthian tax laws to advantage their contributors and themselves. How many of these congress-critters come to DC with average means but leave with riches beyond the dreams of avarice, and how much of that income is probably to evade taxation.

You also seem to be unable to parse the difference between influence and influence peddling.

The vast majority of the labyrinthian federal tax code was added to help the rich avoid paying taxes.