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

[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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

Here we go again. You stated:

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?

There's no mention in the article you quoted of anything that could be interpreted as a quid pro quo. In fact, the persons from which the funds were received "...(Crow) has not had cases at the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it and has previously said Thomas is a dear friend. David Sokol, a conservative financier who has taken Thomas on vacation on a private jet, said in a statement that he and Thomas had never discussed the justice’s finances or when he might retire.

I've already stated that Thomas' actions have justifiably prompted questions about ethics. So stipulated.

As far as your claim of "evidence of taking bribes"? Still waiting for you to produce that evidence to back up your claim.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Here we go again. You stated:

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?

There's no mention in the article you quoted of anything that could be interpreted as a quid pro quo. In fact, the persons from which the funds were received "...(Crow) has not had cases at the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it and has previously said Thomas is a dear friend. David Sokol, a conservative financier who has taken Thomas on vacation on a private jet, said in a statement that he and Thomas had never discussed the justice’s finances or when he might retire.

I've already stated that Thomas' actions have justifiably prompted questions about ethics. So stipulated.

As far as your claim of "evidence of taking bribes"? Still waiting for you to produce that evidence to back up your claim.

I explained the nature of the (blatantly obvious) quid pro quo in plain English. It might well be better described as extortion than bribery (i.e., I'm gonna quit (and thereby stop being a reliable conservative vote) if you don't provide me a lavish lifestyle). This is a far more obvious quid pro quo than whatever unproven narrative you're asserting about Biden.

As predicted, you came up with a tenuous defense of Thomas's conduct. Also, you deftly didn't address the myriad corrupt practices of the Trump White House which started with embezzlement during his 2016 inauguration and continued from there (Trump hotel in DC, Trump's planned hotel in Moscow, Ivanka's Chinese trademarks, Trump embezzling money from "Stop the Steal" contributions, persistent tax and bank fraud while President, porn star payoffs from the Oval Office, Kushner's $2 billion gift from Saudi Arabia ...).

You're simply too far gone down the MAGA rathole to realize that whole Biden impeachment thing is nothing other than a Trump-directed effort that will allow him to say "Sure, I was impeached, but so was Biden."

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I explained the nature of the (blatantly obvious) quid pro quo in plain English. It might well be better described as extortion than bribery (i.e., I'm gonna quit (and thereby stop being a reliable conservative vote) ...

The problem is that no one is making that claim except you and yours. The Pro Publica article you posted SPECULATES the motivation behind the trips, etc. was linked to a conversation Thomas had with Stearns. But beyond this speculation, there is no evidence of a connection. Thus we're back to: do you have any actual evidence other than your opinion?

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're simply too far gone down the MAGA rathole to realize that whole Biden impeachment thing is nothing other than a Trump-directed effort that will allow him to say "Sure, I was impeached, but so was Biden."

You're too demented to realize how demented you sound.