Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You can believe whatever you want, but reality doesn't have to bend to the will of your beliefs. As Archer confirmed, Hunter was using the illusion of access to Joe Biden, but there was never any involvement by him in "the brand".I disagree. I believe Hunter Biden was clearly using influence peddling with his father to those various businessmen.
As the article points out, it's unclear when she purchased the artwork, and she was already a significant donor through conventional channels before that, so I think you may be jumping to conclusions here.But typically those donations are through "conventional" channels like DNC/RNC fundraisers, donating to local political causes, etc...
And not "Buy the president's kid's artwork because now he wants to be an artist"
…and Donald Trump did nothing wrong?
As the article mentions, despite her donating through the existing channels, depending on what Hunter's using the money for (and if it was purchased for an amount that most would feel is excessive, even with the subjectivity of art), it creates problems as that could be a way to circumnavigate certain rules with regards to the nature of political donations and the limits/caps on them.As the article points out, it's unclear when she purchased the artwork, and she was already a significant donor through conventional channels before that, so I think you may be jumping to conclusions here.
All of that is a separate issue from the one that we were discussing. It's also off-topic for the thread, which is about Devon Archer's testimony. I don't recall seeing anything in the transcript about Hunter Biden's art career.As the article mentions, despite her donating through the existing channels, depending on what Hunter's using the money for (and if it was purchased for an amount that most would feel is excessive, even with the subjectivity of art), it creates problems as that could be a way to circumnavigate certain rules with regards to the nature of political donations and the limits/caps on them.
For instance, if you started your own campaign and the laws dictated I could only donate, let's say $20,000 max.
Buying a piece of art work from someone close to you for 10 times that amount (and that person, in turn, gives the money to several other people, who can then each make their own $20,000 donation as a result), that could make for a messy situation.
That's why the political ethics analyst in the article stated:
"Legally, you might not have a problem," he said. "But with the appearance, it's a lot to try and explain."
The article also makes reference to the fact that while art is subjective, it's relatively rare that someone with no track record as an artist is going to be able to move $1.3 million dollars worth of art so easily with ever having a museum show or gallery shows prior to that. Or more succinctly, it's very uncommon for someone to have that kind of fiscal success in art when just starting out in their artistic endeavors.
The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.You can believe whatever you want, but reality doesn't have to bend to the will of your beliefs. As Archer confirmed, Hunter was using the illusion of access to Joe Biden, but there was never any involvement by him in "the brand".
If “only the mark gets took” it’s not influence peddling since no influence is being employed in this case.The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.
There's nothing illegal about a child dealing in the illusion of influence peddling with a parent.The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.
If the laptop wasn't a big negative against the Bidens, then why did Big tech suppress and censor information about it at the behest of the FBI?There's nothing illegal about a child dealing in the illusion of influence peddling with a parent.
There simply is no there there. It's been 3 years since the supposed laptop from h e double hockey sticks and nothing substantial has come from it. Just a drug addict chronicling his descent into madness.
Comer's clown show this week was just the latest example of the right wing promising the moon and delivering a nothing burger.
What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?If “only the mark gets took” it’s not influence peddling since no influence is being employed in this case.
Then Vice President Biden was simply carrying out U.S. policy. The International Monetary Fund threatened to withhold even more ($40 billion) if the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, wasn't removed.What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?
The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.
Because it’s provenance was suspect.If the laptop wasn't a big negative against the Bidens, then why did Big tech suppress and censor information about it at the behest of the FBI?
Yes, we gave Ukraine money with the condition that they have the corrupt prosecutor (who wasn’t prosecuting), fired.What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?
You mean the October Surprise that was meant to sway the election mainly from the salacious photos of Hunter in the depths of drug addiction?If the laptop wasn't a big negative against the Bidens,
That didn't happen. The FBI - don't forget, Donald's FBI at the time - alerted social media companies to be on the lookout for Russian disinformation. When the supposed "laptop" was unleashed as an October Surprise, social media companies correctly saw it for what it was.then why did Big tech suppress and censor information about it at the behest of the FBI?
It means everything you "know" about the situation, you got from the Conservisphere and not from reality. I suggest you read this thread.What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?