Hunter Biden’s $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly ‘RESOLVED’ Despite Claiming NO Income

[Faun]

Hunter Biden’s $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly ‘RESOLVED’ Despite Claiming NO Income​

Hunter Biden's $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly 'RESOLVED' Despite Claiming NO Income

No reporters are asking about the money.

us24news.com

23 Aug 2020 ~~ By Jonathan Jones

A large tax debt owed to the government by the son of former Vice President Joe Biden has disappeared, according to a report.
Hunter Biden, who has faced scrutiny over allegedly profiting from businesses internationally using his father’s influence, recently told a court in his Arkansas paternity case that he was out of work and broke.
The Washington Free Beacon reported Saturday that despite the younger Biden’s reported personal and financial woes, he was able to resolve a six-figure tax debt in a short period of time.
“Hunter Biden was hit with a $450,000 lien in July over delinquent state income taxes, which he paid off in six days despite having no discernible income,” the Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman reported.
The ability to pay nearly half a million dollars in back taxes in less than a week seems to contradict statements from Biden to an Arkansas court that he could not afford to pay child support.
In January, Biden agreed to pay the mother of a child he fathered in Arkansas, despite not having a job, retroactive to November 2018, Fox News reported.
Biden failed to turn over documents relevant to his income and was held in contempt of court, according to Fox.
After a court-ordered paternity test, Biden was found to be the child’s father.
There was also a legal dustup concerning how much Biden’s permanent monthly child support payment would be calculated.
The paternity and child support case in Arkansas furthers the mystery surrounding Biden’s ability to pay off the reported tax debt.
“A spokesman for D.C.’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer confirmed that Hunter Biden’s lien was released on July 15 after the ‘tax issue was resolved.’ The office declined to say whether Biden had paid off the debt,” The Free Beacon reported.
It is unclear what income, if any, Biden has at the moment, as his father seeks to unseat President Donald Trump in November.
Biden has been linked to a series of financial scandals.
After being hired by Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings in 2014, Biden was paid a salary of $83,333 a month, Fox reported.
The high salary was paid despite the former VP’s son holding a job as a non-executive “ceremonial figure.”
It was also said by three individuals close to Biden’s Burisma deal that he never visited Ukraine, despite the exorbitant salary, according to Reuters.
Biden was reportedly paid that salary from April 2014 until November 2015.
[Snip]
In Biden’s 2017 divorce, his former wife claimed he sent the family into financial ruin by spending money on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations.”
Kathleen Biden said the family was left with massive debts by Biden’s alleged activities, including tax debt, medical bills and credit cards that were maxed out.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Comment:
Hmm...., If it is any consolation, I don’t think Hunter is going to help him during the election.
Trump is going to highlight this early and often and frankly it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong with the Ukraine and China deals, but wait.... there is even more to come out.
The Biden’s played the same scheme in other Eastern European countries as well as Iraq where Biden’s brother landed a lucrative contract in an area where he had no expertise.
It would be a shame if Hunter put all those dollars up hi nose...
the question is where is that $1.4 billion dollar China deal money?

Hunter Biden was not hired to the Burisma board as a "ceremonial figure". He was hired to head Burisma's legal team.

Ukrainian Employer of Joe Biden’s Son Hires a D.C. Lobbyist

An obscure private Ukrainian natural gas company has been hiring friends and family of Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, while seeking to influence Congress

time.com

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

JULY 7, 2014 10:39 PM EDT

When Vice President Joe Biden’s son, R. Hunter Biden, joined the board of a private Ukrainian oil and natural gas company this spring, he explained his new job as a legal one, disconnected from any effort to influence the Obama Administration. In a press release, the younger Biden boasted of his abilities on issues like improving corporate transparency.

And Burisma certainly had their share of legal troubles for Hunter Biden to solve for them. Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevskyi had fled the country to Moscow to avoid prosecution.

Joe Biden held back $1 billion in US treasury loan guarantees, which were needed to secure over $30 brillion in other loans to bail out Ukraine.

Biden certainly took care of Burisma's legal problems. He gave President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk an ultimatum. Either fire the prosecutor general who is investigating Burisma, and replace him with a puppet, or Ukraine becomes financially insolvent.

That puppet was Biden's "solid", Yuriy Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption in office until his sentence was commuted after an appeal by Hunter Biden's fellow Burisma board member, Alexander Kwasniewski.
,

Ukraine: Yanukovych Pardons Lutsenko

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has pardoned jailed former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko, a close ally of imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

www.rferl.org

But there was a problem. Biden's corrupt puppet didn't have a law degree and had never practiced law. He never even went to law school, fer crissakes. And under Ukrainian law, the Prosecutor General was required to have a law degree and a minimum number of years experience as an attorney.

Facing Quid Pro Joe's threats, the Ukrainian parliament had no choice. In a special session, they actually changed the law that required the country's top attorney be an actual fucking real life attorney with a law degree and everything.

As much of scandal as that was, no matter how embarrassing and degrading it was, no matter how outraged the people were, the Ukrainian parliament had to do it. Joe Biden made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

It's horrible.

So they went with someone that had no training or experience in Ukrainian law???

We went with a president who had no prior training or even the slightest knowledge of the constitution -- so lets not pretend that experience and expertise is supposed to matter now...You trumpers take pride in hating expertise....

"Expertise", Biff? Oh you mean like Barack Obama's? The guy never so much as ran a lemonade stand in his entire life and you made him President of the United States! The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has been a business executive for most of his adult life and THAT expertise is what he used to give us some of the best economic numbers we've ever seen prior to the pandemic shutting down the country! He'll use that same expertise to help get us out of the recession that we're now in...or you can put Joe Biden in...someone who has no expertise fixing economies or creating jobs!

GDP growth of 2.4% in 2019 is not anywhere near the best economic numbers we’ve ever seen.

This myth that the economy was so amazing, even prior to COVID, is absurd.

JObs everywhere, wages actually gong up not down like they do under Obama, stock market at an all time high-------and you think you can convince people that the economy wasn't the best. Keep dreaming.

Obama added 10 million jobs. Increasing wages. Stock market at all time highs.

Trump said it was a disaster.

It was a disaster. Obama started at the bottom of a recession. He should have blown the roof off the sucker just getting back to where we started. Instead he decided to scare the shit out of business what he was going to do to us next and caused the worst recession recovery ever. It was his fault, but he took no responsibility for his own fuck up

So all you have is a counterfactual?

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did. This is you again criticizing Trump for shutting down the economy while demand he shut down the economy.

Also, Trump didn't start at the bottom of a deep recession. Think about it. Try, really really hard

2.4% GDP growth is NOT blowing anyone away.

But I expect a litany or excuses as to why that’s good “considering”.

You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away.

Obama had lower GDP growth and he started with a tap in put at the bottom of a deep recession. Trump didn't have that huge advantage and did better. But the blowing people away shit is something you made up, not something I said

Dont be so pendantic.

why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did.

Blow people away, blow the roof off. Whatever. This is a meaningless nit pick for someone without a real argument.

Trump sure as hell didn’t campaign on promises of 2.4% GDP growth and in 2016 would have considered such a rate to be pathetic.

Pedantic is you exaggerating what people say, like saying Trump didn't blow people away when no one said he did

Good lord, that doesn’t even make sense. Do you know what pendantic even means?

I guess you’re done trying to convince me how great 2.4% GDP growth is. Too bad, I needed a laugh right about now.

Unlike you, I know how to spell it.

Yes, it means being annoying. Again, you're the one being pedantic. No one said "how great" anything is. I said Obama was a disappointment and now you're nagging that you wanted Trump to impress you, something I never said he did. That you keep going to a point I didn't make as if I did it totally pedantic

I asked why didn’t Trump blow the roof off the economy. You said he did. I quoted the relevant posts.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is useless. You can’t even admit to the things you just said.

From the discussion in the quotes (above):

Colfax: If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

kaz: You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away

That was your question and my response. Explain without being pedantic how that is saying I said Trump did blow people away

We are still waiting for you to show us how Obama was such a screw up -- especially in a comparative analysis to Trump context...

As we speak....Trump is running for president as if he hasn't been president for the past 4 years....that is pathetic...

Who is "us?" The voices in your head? Who is it you think you speak for? I bunch of imaginary people in your living room?

No, you kazzer, i.e., liar, he mean "us" as in the posters reading this thread. Don't think readers here don't notice you whine about him saying, "us," to avoid addressing his challenge. Just as you did with colfax_m by constantly crying how you said "blow the roof off," not, "blow people away," to avoid addressing his challenge. Your schtick fails you because you're a loser.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Adults understand it.

Patting your head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said

You poor kazzer, there are no adults doing that.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Why? Adults understand it.

Adults patting you on the head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said, kiddy.

If you could talk in adult, that would be great

View attachment 380139

LOL

You can't kaz your way out of this. Adults get it and no one's patting me on the head.

 

[kaz]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

 

[kaz]

Hunter Biden’s $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly ‘RESOLVED’ Despite Claiming NO Income​

Hunter Biden's $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly 'RESOLVED' Despite Claiming NO Income

No reporters are asking about the money.

us24news.com

23 Aug 2020 ~~ By Jonathan Jones

A large tax debt owed to the government by the son of former Vice President Joe Biden has disappeared, according to a report.
Hunter Biden, who has faced scrutiny over allegedly profiting from businesses internationally using his father’s influence, recently told a court in his Arkansas paternity case that he was out of work and broke.
The Washington Free Beacon reported Saturday that despite the younger Biden’s reported personal and financial woes, he was able to resolve a six-figure tax debt in a short period of time.
“Hunter Biden was hit with a $450,000 lien in July over delinquent state income taxes, which he paid off in six days despite having no discernible income,” the Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman reported.
The ability to pay nearly half a million dollars in back taxes in less than a week seems to contradict statements from Biden to an Arkansas court that he could not afford to pay child support.
In January, Biden agreed to pay the mother of a child he fathered in Arkansas, despite not having a job, retroactive to November 2018, Fox News reported.
Biden failed to turn over documents relevant to his income and was held in contempt of court, according to Fox.
After a court-ordered paternity test, Biden was found to be the child’s father.
There was also a legal dustup concerning how much Biden’s permanent monthly child support payment would be calculated.
The paternity and child support case in Arkansas furthers the mystery surrounding Biden’s ability to pay off the reported tax debt.
“A spokesman for D.C.’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer confirmed that Hunter Biden’s lien was released on July 15 after the ‘tax issue was resolved.’ The office declined to say whether Biden had paid off the debt,” The Free Beacon reported.
It is unclear what income, if any, Biden has at the moment, as his father seeks to unseat President Donald Trump in November.
Biden has been linked to a series of financial scandals.
After being hired by Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings in 2014, Biden was paid a salary of $83,333 a month, Fox reported.
The high salary was paid despite the former VP’s son holding a job as a non-executive “ceremonial figure.”
It was also said by three individuals close to Biden’s Burisma deal that he never visited Ukraine, despite the exorbitant salary, according to Reuters.
Biden was reportedly paid that salary from April 2014 until November 2015.
[Snip]
In Biden’s 2017 divorce, his former wife claimed he sent the family into financial ruin by spending money on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations.”
Kathleen Biden said the family was left with massive debts by Biden’s alleged activities, including tax debt, medical bills and credit cards that were maxed out.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Comment:
Hmm...., If it is any consolation, I don’t think Hunter is going to help him during the election.
Trump is going to highlight this early and often and frankly it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong with the Ukraine and China deals, but wait.... there is even more to come out.
The Biden’s played the same scheme in other Eastern European countries as well as Iraq where Biden’s brother landed a lucrative contract in an area where he had no expertise.
It would be a shame if Hunter put all those dollars up hi nose...
the question is where is that $1.4 billion dollar China deal money?

Hunter Biden was not hired to the Burisma board as a "ceremonial figure". He was hired to head Burisma's legal team.

Ukrainian Employer of Joe Biden’s Son Hires a D.C. Lobbyist

An obscure private Ukrainian natural gas company has been hiring friends and family of Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, while seeking to influence Congress

time.com

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

JULY 7, 2014 10:39 PM EDT

When Vice President Joe Biden’s son, R. Hunter Biden, joined the board of a private Ukrainian oil and natural gas company this spring, he explained his new job as a legal one, disconnected from any effort to influence the Obama Administration. In a press release, the younger Biden boasted of his abilities on issues like improving corporate transparency.

And Burisma certainly had their share of legal troubles for Hunter Biden to solve for them. Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevskyi had fled the country to Moscow to avoid prosecution.

Joe Biden held back $1 billion in US treasury loan guarantees, which were needed to secure over $30 brillion in other loans to bail out Ukraine.

Biden certainly took care of Burisma's legal problems. He gave President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk an ultimatum. Either fire the prosecutor general who is investigating Burisma, and replace him with a puppet, or Ukraine becomes financially insolvent.

That puppet was Biden's "solid", Yuriy Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption in office until his sentence was commuted after an appeal by Hunter Biden's fellow Burisma board member, Alexander Kwasniewski.
,

Ukraine: Yanukovych Pardons Lutsenko

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has pardoned jailed former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko, a close ally of imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

www.rferl.org

But there was a problem. Biden's corrupt puppet didn't have a law degree and had never practiced law. He never even went to law school, fer crissakes. And under Ukrainian law, the Prosecutor General was required to have a law degree and a minimum number of years experience as an attorney.

Facing Quid Pro Joe's threats, the Ukrainian parliament had no choice. In a special session, they actually changed the law that required the country's top attorney be an actual fucking real life attorney with a law degree and everything.

As much of scandal as that was, no matter how embarrassing and degrading it was, no matter how outraged the people were, the Ukrainian parliament had to do it. Joe Biden made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

It's horrible.

So they went with someone that had no training or experience in Ukrainian law???

We went with a president who had no prior training or even the slightest knowledge of the constitution -- so lets not pretend that experience and expertise is supposed to matter now...You trumpers take pride in hating expertise....

"Expertise", Biff? Oh you mean like Barack Obama's? The guy never so much as ran a lemonade stand in his entire life and you made him President of the United States! The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has been a business executive for most of his adult life and THAT expertise is what he used to give us some of the best economic numbers we've ever seen prior to the pandemic shutting down the country! He'll use that same expertise to help get us out of the recession that we're now in...or you can put Joe Biden in...someone who has no expertise fixing economies or creating jobs!

GDP growth of 2.4% in 2019 is not anywhere near the best economic numbers we’ve ever seen.

This myth that the economy was so amazing, even prior to COVID, is absurd.

JObs everywhere, wages actually gong up not down like they do under Obama, stock market at an all time high-------and you think you can convince people that the economy wasn't the best. Keep dreaming.

Obama added 10 million jobs. Increasing wages. Stock market at all time highs.

Trump said it was a disaster.

It was a disaster. Obama started at the bottom of a recession. He should have blown the roof off the sucker just getting back to where we started. Instead he decided to scare the shit out of business what he was going to do to us next and caused the worst recession recovery ever. It was his fault, but he took no responsibility for his own fuck up

So all you have is a counterfactual?

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did. This is you again criticizing Trump for shutting down the economy while demand he shut down the economy.

Also, Trump didn't start at the bottom of a deep recession. Think about it. Try, really really hard

2.4% GDP growth is NOT blowing anyone away.

But I expect a litany or excuses as to why that’s good “considering”.

You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away.

Obama had lower GDP growth and he started with a tap in put at the bottom of a deep recession. Trump didn't have that huge advantage and did better. But the blowing people away shit is something you made up, not something I said

Dont be so pendantic.

why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did.

Blow people away, blow the roof off. Whatever. This is a meaningless nit pick for someone without a real argument.

Trump sure as hell didn’t campaign on promises of 2.4% GDP growth and in 2016 would have considered such a rate to be pathetic.

Pedantic is you exaggerating what people say, like saying Trump didn't blow people away when no one said he did

Good lord, that doesn’t even make sense. Do you know what pendantic even means?

I guess you’re done trying to convince me how great 2.4% GDP growth is. Too bad, I needed a laugh right about now.

Unlike you, I know how to spell it.

Yes, it means being annoying. Again, you're the one being pedantic. No one said "how great" anything is. I said Obama was a disappointment and now you're nagging that you wanted Trump to impress you, something I never said he did. That you keep going to a point I didn't make as if I did it totally pedantic

I asked why didn’t Trump blow the roof off the economy. You said he did. I quoted the relevant posts.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is useless. You can’t even admit to the things you just said.

From the discussion in the quotes (above):

Colfax: If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

kaz: You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away

That was your question and my response. Explain without being pedantic how that is saying I said Trump did blow people away

We are still waiting for you to show us how Obama was such a screw up -- especially in a comparative analysis to Trump context...

As we speak....Trump is running for president as if he hasn't been president for the past 4 years....that is pathetic...

Who is "us?" The voices in your head? Who is it you think you speak for? I bunch of imaginary people in your living room?

No, you kazzer, i.e., liar, he mean "us" as in the posters reading this thread. Don't think readers here don't notice you whine about him saying, "us," to avoid addressing his challenge. Just as you did with colfax_m by constantly crying how you said "blow the roof off," not, "blow people away," to avoid addressing his challenge. Your schtick fails you because you're a loser.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Adults understand it.

Patting your head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said

You poor kazzer, there are no adults doing that.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Why? Adults understand it.

Adults patting you on the head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said, kiddy.

If you could talk in adult, that would be great

View attachment 380139

LOL

You can't kaz your way out of this. Adults get it and no one's patting me on the head.

There there, kiddie. When you want to talk grown up let me know. In the mean time, here's a pat on the head and a ball. Look it's bouncy

 

[Faun]

Hunter Biden’s $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly ‘RESOLVED’ Despite Claiming NO Income​

Hunter Biden's $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly 'RESOLVED' Despite Claiming NO Income

No reporters are asking about the money.

us24news.com

23 Aug 2020 ~~ By Jonathan Jones

A large tax debt owed to the government by the son of former Vice President Joe Biden has disappeared, according to a report.
Hunter Biden, who has faced scrutiny over allegedly profiting from businesses internationally using his father’s influence, recently told a court in his Arkansas paternity case that he was out of work and broke.
The Washington Free Beacon reported Saturday that despite the younger Biden’s reported personal and financial woes, he was able to resolve a six-figure tax debt in a short period of time.
“Hunter Biden was hit with a $450,000 lien in July over delinquent state income taxes, which he paid off in six days despite having no discernible income,” the Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman reported.
The ability to pay nearly half a million dollars in back taxes in less than a week seems to contradict statements from Biden to an Arkansas court that he could not afford to pay child support.
In January, Biden agreed to pay the mother of a child he fathered in Arkansas, despite not having a job, retroactive to November 2018, Fox News reported.
Biden failed to turn over documents relevant to his income and was held in contempt of court, according to Fox.
After a court-ordered paternity test, Biden was found to be the child’s father.
There was also a legal dustup concerning how much Biden’s permanent monthly child support payment would be calculated.
The paternity and child support case in Arkansas furthers the mystery surrounding Biden’s ability to pay off the reported tax debt.
“A spokesman for D.C.’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer confirmed that Hunter Biden’s lien was released on July 15 after the ‘tax issue was resolved.’ The office declined to say whether Biden had paid off the debt,” The Free Beacon reported.
It is unclear what income, if any, Biden has at the moment, as his father seeks to unseat President Donald Trump in November.
Biden has been linked to a series of financial scandals.
After being hired by Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings in 2014, Biden was paid a salary of $83,333 a month, Fox reported.
The high salary was paid despite the former VP’s son holding a job as a non-executive “ceremonial figure.”
It was also said by three individuals close to Biden’s Burisma deal that he never visited Ukraine, despite the exorbitant salary, according to Reuters.
Biden was reportedly paid that salary from April 2014 until November 2015.
[Snip]
In Biden’s 2017 divorce, his former wife claimed he sent the family into financial ruin by spending money on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations.”
Kathleen Biden said the family was left with massive debts by Biden’s alleged activities, including tax debt, medical bills and credit cards that were maxed out.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Comment:
Hmm...., If it is any consolation, I don’t think Hunter is going to help him during the election.
Trump is going to highlight this early and often and frankly it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong with the Ukraine and China deals, but wait.... there is even more to come out.
The Biden’s played the same scheme in other Eastern European countries as well as Iraq where Biden’s brother landed a lucrative contract in an area where he had no expertise.
It would be a shame if Hunter put all those dollars up hi nose...
the question is where is that $1.4 billion dollar China deal money?

Hunter Biden was not hired to the Burisma board as a "ceremonial figure". He was hired to head Burisma's legal team.

Ukrainian Employer of Joe Biden’s Son Hires a D.C. Lobbyist

An obscure private Ukrainian natural gas company has been hiring friends and family of Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, while seeking to influence Congress

time.com

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

JULY 7, 2014 10:39 PM EDT

When Vice President Joe Biden’s son, R. Hunter Biden, joined the board of a private Ukrainian oil and natural gas company this spring, he explained his new job as a legal one, disconnected from any effort to influence the Obama Administration. In a press release, the younger Biden boasted of his abilities on issues like improving corporate transparency.

And Burisma certainly had their share of legal troubles for Hunter Biden to solve for them. Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevskyi had fled the country to Moscow to avoid prosecution.

Joe Biden held back $1 billion in US treasury loan guarantees, which were needed to secure over $30 brillion in other loans to bail out Ukraine.

Biden certainly took care of Burisma's legal problems. He gave President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk an ultimatum. Either fire the prosecutor general who is investigating Burisma, and replace him with a puppet, or Ukraine becomes financially insolvent.

That puppet was Biden's "solid", Yuriy Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption in office until his sentence was commuted after an appeal by Hunter Biden's fellow Burisma board member, Alexander Kwasniewski.
,

Ukraine: Yanukovych Pardons Lutsenko

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has pardoned jailed former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko, a close ally of imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

www.rferl.org

But there was a problem. Biden's corrupt puppet didn't have a law degree and had never practiced law. He never even went to law school, fer crissakes. And under Ukrainian law, the Prosecutor General was required to have a law degree and a minimum number of years experience as an attorney.

Facing Quid Pro Joe's threats, the Ukrainian parliament had no choice. In a special session, they actually changed the law that required the country's top attorney be an actual fucking real life attorney with a law degree and everything.

As much of scandal as that was, no matter how embarrassing and degrading it was, no matter how outraged the people were, the Ukrainian parliament had to do it. Joe Biden made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

It's horrible.

So they went with someone that had no training or experience in Ukrainian law???

We went with a president who had no prior training or even the slightest knowledge of the constitution -- so lets not pretend that experience and expertise is supposed to matter now...You trumpers take pride in hating expertise....

"Expertise", Biff? Oh you mean like Barack Obama's? The guy never so much as ran a lemonade stand in his entire life and you made him President of the United States! The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has been a business executive for most of his adult life and THAT expertise is what he used to give us some of the best economic numbers we've ever seen prior to the pandemic shutting down the country! He'll use that same expertise to help get us out of the recession that we're now in...or you can put Joe Biden in...someone who has no expertise fixing economies or creating jobs!

GDP growth of 2.4% in 2019 is not anywhere near the best economic numbers we’ve ever seen.

This myth that the economy was so amazing, even prior to COVID, is absurd.

JObs everywhere, wages actually gong up not down like they do under Obama, stock market at an all time high-------and you think you can convince people that the economy wasn't the best. Keep dreaming.

Obama added 10 million jobs. Increasing wages. Stock market at all time highs.

Trump said it was a disaster.

It was a disaster. Obama started at the bottom of a recession. He should have blown the roof off the sucker just getting back to where we started. Instead he decided to scare the shit out of business what he was going to do to us next and caused the worst recession recovery ever. It was his fault, but he took no responsibility for his own fuck up

So all you have is a counterfactual?

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did. This is you again criticizing Trump for shutting down the economy while demand he shut down the economy.

Also, Trump didn't start at the bottom of a deep recession. Think about it. Try, really really hard

2.4% GDP growth is NOT blowing anyone away.

But I expect a litany or excuses as to why that’s good “considering”.

You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away.

Obama had lower GDP growth and he started with a tap in put at the bottom of a deep recession. Trump didn't have that huge advantage and did better. But the blowing people away shit is something you made up, not something I said

Dont be so pendantic.

why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did.

Blow people away, blow the roof off. Whatever. This is a meaningless nit pick for someone without a real argument.

Trump sure as hell didn’t campaign on promises of 2.4% GDP growth and in 2016 would have considered such a rate to be pathetic.

Pedantic is you exaggerating what people say, like saying Trump didn't blow people away when no one said he did

Good lord, that doesn’t even make sense. Do you know what pendantic even means?

I guess you’re done trying to convince me how great 2.4% GDP growth is. Too bad, I needed a laugh right about now.

Unlike you, I know how to spell it.

Yes, it means being annoying. Again, you're the one being pedantic. No one said "how great" anything is. I said Obama was a disappointment and now you're nagging that you wanted Trump to impress you, something I never said he did. That you keep going to a point I didn't make as if I did it totally pedantic

I asked why didn’t Trump blow the roof off the economy. You said he did. I quoted the relevant posts.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is useless. You can’t even admit to the things you just said.

From the discussion in the quotes (above):

Colfax: If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

kaz: You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away

That was your question and my response. Explain without being pedantic how that is saying I said Trump did blow people away

We are still waiting for you to show us how Obama was such a screw up -- especially in a comparative analysis to Trump context...

As we speak....Trump is running for president as if he hasn't been president for the past 4 years....that is pathetic...

Who is "us?" The voices in your head? Who is it you think you speak for? I bunch of imaginary people in your living room?

No, you kazzer, i.e., liar, he mean "us" as in the posters reading this thread. Don't think readers here don't notice you whine about him saying, "us," to avoid addressing his challenge. Just as you did with colfax_m by constantly crying how you said "blow the roof off," not, "blow people away," to avoid addressing his challenge. Your schtick fails you because you're a loser.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Adults understand it.

Patting your head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said

You poor kazzer, there are no adults doing that.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Why? Adults understand it.

Adults patting you on the head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said, kiddy.

If you could talk in adult, that would be great

View attachment 380139

LOL

You can't kaz your way out of this. Adults get it and no one's patting me on the head.

There there, kiddie. When you want to talk grown up let me know. In the mean time, here's a pat on the head and a ball. Look it's bouncy

LOL

So you kazzed, i.e., lied again. You said adults were patting me on the head when in fact, you're the only one wanting to do that.

 

[kaz]

Hunter Biden’s $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly ‘RESOLVED’ Despite Claiming NO Income​

Hunter Biden's $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly 'RESOLVED' Despite Claiming NO Income

No reporters are asking about the money.

us24news.com

23 Aug 2020 ~~ By Jonathan Jones

A large tax debt owed to the government by the son of former Vice President Joe Biden has disappeared, according to a report.
Hunter Biden, who has faced scrutiny over allegedly profiting from businesses internationally using his father’s influence, recently told a court in his Arkansas paternity case that he was out of work and broke.
The Washington Free Beacon reported Saturday that despite the younger Biden’s reported personal and financial woes, he was able to resolve a six-figure tax debt in a short period of time.
“Hunter Biden was hit with a $450,000 lien in July over delinquent state income taxes, which he paid off in six days despite having no discernible income,” the Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman reported.
The ability to pay nearly half a million dollars in back taxes in less than a week seems to contradict statements from Biden to an Arkansas court that he could not afford to pay child support.
In January, Biden agreed to pay the mother of a child he fathered in Arkansas, despite not having a job, retroactive to November 2018, Fox News reported.
Biden failed to turn over documents relevant to his income and was held in contempt of court, according to Fox.
After a court-ordered paternity test, Biden was found to be the child’s father.
There was also a legal dustup concerning how much Biden’s permanent monthly child support payment would be calculated.
The paternity and child support case in Arkansas furthers the mystery surrounding Biden’s ability to pay off the reported tax debt.
“A spokesman for D.C.’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer confirmed that Hunter Biden’s lien was released on July 15 after the ‘tax issue was resolved.’ The office declined to say whether Biden had paid off the debt,” The Free Beacon reported.
It is unclear what income, if any, Biden has at the moment, as his father seeks to unseat President Donald Trump in November.
Biden has been linked to a series of financial scandals.
After being hired by Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings in 2014, Biden was paid a salary of $83,333 a month, Fox reported.
The high salary was paid despite the former VP’s son holding a job as a non-executive “ceremonial figure.”
It was also said by three individuals close to Biden’s Burisma deal that he never visited Ukraine, despite the exorbitant salary, according to Reuters.
Biden was reportedly paid that salary from April 2014 until November 2015.
[Snip]
In Biden’s 2017 divorce, his former wife claimed he sent the family into financial ruin by spending money on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations.”
Kathleen Biden said the family was left with massive debts by Biden’s alleged activities, including tax debt, medical bills and credit cards that were maxed out.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Comment:
Hmm...., If it is any consolation, I don’t think Hunter is going to help him during the election.
Trump is going to highlight this early and often and frankly it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong with the Ukraine and China deals, but wait.... there is even more to come out.
The Biden’s played the same scheme in other Eastern European countries as well as Iraq where Biden’s brother landed a lucrative contract in an area where he had no expertise.
It would be a shame if Hunter put all those dollars up hi nose...
the question is where is that $1.4 billion dollar China deal money?

Hunter Biden was not hired to the Burisma board as a "ceremonial figure". He was hired to head Burisma's legal team.

Ukrainian Employer of Joe Biden’s Son Hires a D.C. Lobbyist

An obscure private Ukrainian natural gas company has been hiring friends and family of Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, while seeking to influence Congress

time.com

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

JULY 7, 2014 10:39 PM EDT

When Vice President Joe Biden’s son, R. Hunter Biden, joined the board of a private Ukrainian oil and natural gas company this spring, he explained his new job as a legal one, disconnected from any effort to influence the Obama Administration. In a press release, the younger Biden boasted of his abilities on issues like improving corporate transparency.

And Burisma certainly had their share of legal troubles for Hunter Biden to solve for them. Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevskyi had fled the country to Moscow to avoid prosecution.

Joe Biden held back $1 billion in US treasury loan guarantees, which were needed to secure over $30 brillion in other loans to bail out Ukraine.

Biden certainly took care of Burisma's legal problems. He gave President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk an ultimatum. Either fire the prosecutor general who is investigating Burisma, and replace him with a puppet, or Ukraine becomes financially insolvent.

That puppet was Biden's "solid", Yuriy Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption in office until his sentence was commuted after an appeal by Hunter Biden's fellow Burisma board member, Alexander Kwasniewski.
,

Ukraine: Yanukovych Pardons Lutsenko

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has pardoned jailed former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko, a close ally of imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

www.rferl.org

But there was a problem. Biden's corrupt puppet didn't have a law degree and had never practiced law. He never even went to law school, fer crissakes. And under Ukrainian law, the Prosecutor General was required to have a law degree and a minimum number of years experience as an attorney.

Facing Quid Pro Joe's threats, the Ukrainian parliament had no choice. In a special session, they actually changed the law that required the country's top attorney be an actual fucking real life attorney with a law degree and everything.

As much of scandal as that was, no matter how embarrassing and degrading it was, no matter how outraged the people were, the Ukrainian parliament had to do it. Joe Biden made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

It's horrible.

So they went with someone that had no training or experience in Ukrainian law???

We went with a president who had no prior training or even the slightest knowledge of the constitution -- so lets not pretend that experience and expertise is supposed to matter now...You trumpers take pride in hating expertise....

"Expertise", Biff? Oh you mean like Barack Obama's? The guy never so much as ran a lemonade stand in his entire life and you made him President of the United States! The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has been a business executive for most of his adult life and THAT expertise is what he used to give us some of the best economic numbers we've ever seen prior to the pandemic shutting down the country! He'll use that same expertise to help get us out of the recession that we're now in...or you can put Joe Biden in...someone who has no expertise fixing economies or creating jobs!

GDP growth of 2.4% in 2019 is not anywhere near the best economic numbers we’ve ever seen.

This myth that the economy was so amazing, even prior to COVID, is absurd.

JObs everywhere, wages actually gong up not down like they do under Obama, stock market at an all time high-------and you think you can convince people that the economy wasn't the best. Keep dreaming.

Obama added 10 million jobs. Increasing wages. Stock market at all time highs.

Trump said it was a disaster.

It was a disaster. Obama started at the bottom of a recession. He should have blown the roof off the sucker just getting back to where we started. Instead he decided to scare the shit out of business what he was going to do to us next and caused the worst recession recovery ever. It was his fault, but he took no responsibility for his own fuck up

So all you have is a counterfactual?

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did. This is you again criticizing Trump for shutting down the economy while demand he shut down the economy.

Also, Trump didn't start at the bottom of a deep recession. Think about it. Try, really really hard

2.4% GDP growth is NOT blowing anyone away.

But I expect a litany or excuses as to why that’s good “considering”.

You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away.

Obama had lower GDP growth and he started with a tap in put at the bottom of a deep recession. Trump didn't have that huge advantage and did better. But the blowing people away shit is something you made up, not something I said

Dont be so pendantic.

why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did.

Blow people away, blow the roof off. Whatever. This is a meaningless nit pick for someone without a real argument.

Trump sure as hell didn’t campaign on promises of 2.4% GDP growth and in 2016 would have considered such a rate to be pathetic.

Pedantic is you exaggerating what people say, like saying Trump didn't blow people away when no one said he did

Good lord, that doesn’t even make sense. Do you know what pendantic even means?

I guess you’re done trying to convince me how great 2.4% GDP growth is. Too bad, I needed a laugh right about now.

Unlike you, I know how to spell it.

Yes, it means being annoying. Again, you're the one being pedantic. No one said "how great" anything is. I said Obama was a disappointment and now you're nagging that you wanted Trump to impress you, something I never said he did. That you keep going to a point I didn't make as if I did it totally pedantic

I asked why didn’t Trump blow the roof off the economy. You said he did. I quoted the relevant posts.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is useless. You can’t even admit to the things you just said.

From the discussion in the quotes (above):

Colfax: If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

kaz: You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away

That was your question and my response. Explain without being pedantic how that is saying I said Trump did blow people away

We are still waiting for you to show us how Obama was such a screw up -- especially in a comparative analysis to Trump context...

As we speak....Trump is running for president as if he hasn't been president for the past 4 years....that is pathetic...

Who is "us?" The voices in your head? Who is it you think you speak for? I bunch of imaginary people in your living room?

No, you kazzer, i.e., liar, he mean "us" as in the posters reading this thread. Don't think readers here don't notice you whine about him saying, "us," to avoid addressing his challenge. Just as you did with colfax_m by constantly crying how you said "blow the roof off," not, "blow people away," to avoid addressing his challenge. Your schtick fails you because you're a loser.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Adults understand it.

Patting your head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said

You poor kazzer, there are no adults doing that.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Why? Adults understand it.

Adults patting you on the head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said, kiddy.

If you could talk in adult, that would be great

View attachment 380139

LOL

You can't kaz your way out of this. Adults get it and no one's patting me on the head.

There there, kiddie. When you want to talk grown up let me know. In the mean time, here's a pat on the head and a ball. Look it's bouncy

LOL

So you kazzed, i.e., lied again. You said adults were patting me on the head when in fact, you're the only one wanting to do that.

An angry little tyke you are. Let me know when you want to talk grown up

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

 

[Muhammed]

Who cares? Let’s say it was a totally irrational decision. But it’s not illegal to make irrational hires and pay them too much money.

If it’s not illegal, you can’t investigate it. The question is irrelevant.

In some cases it certainly is illegal.

Burisma sent a lot of money to Rosemont Seneca, Biden's law firm. It's not necessarily illegal for a corporation in Ukraine to make payments to a board member's company, but is has to be for actual services rendered. Otherwise it's illegal.

That is one of the issues Ukraine is investigating.

Is there credible evidence to suggest that there were no services rendered by Biden?

If no services were rendered, there would be no evidence.

What they want is documentation that services were rendered. And PG Shokin wanted to interview Burisma's board of directors, including Hunter Biden, regarding many other issues too.

Quid Pro Joe extorted Ukraine's government to get Shokin removed and replaced with his corrupt puppet, Lutsenko. So Burisma was off the hook. But not anymore. Zelenski won and there's a new administration and they are reviewing all of Burisma cases.

And the Shokin assassination attempt is also under investigation. Biden obviously had a motive to kill Shokin, so he's naturally a suspect. And just a month after the assassination attempt, Joe Biden started pressuring Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to fire Shokin. So that raises some eyebrows too.

So you have no reason to believe that Hunter Biden failed to perform services for his salary, but you want to investigate anyway?

That would be engaging in a political witch hunt without predication. Not legal.

Bullshit. It's perfectly legal for the PGO and NABU to investigate all payments made by Burisma because of a pattern of corrupt activity, which has included bribery.

Since Joe Biden was caught on a live stream confessing that he extorted Ukraine officials into firing the Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and Zlochevsky, there is plenty of reasonable suspicion that the payments to Biden's firm were nothing but a bribe. Especially since Burisma and Rosemont Seneca have refused to present any contemporaneous documentation showing that Biden's firm rendered any sort of legitimate legal services to Burisma. Likely because they don't exist.

Hell, just a couple of months ago they were caught trying to bribe investigators on behalf of Zlochevsky AGAIN!.

Ukraine seizes $6million to stop probe of firm that hired Hunter Biden

Ukrainian authorities seized $6 million allegedly used for a bribe scheme - the largest in the country's history - linked to Burisma Holdings, a gas company which gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There's definitely a pattern of corruption, including extortion and bribery. Therefore there's plenty of reasonable suspicion to investigate the payments to Biden.

Given the huge amount of evidence, I think we both know beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were a bribe.

You should have read your article, there were no ties to Biden:
The seizure, which is the largest in Ukraine's history, had no ties to Biden, say authorities, who showed stacks of $100 bill at a press conference Saturday.

I did read the article, jackass.

It's more evidence a pattern of corrupt behavior by Zlochevski. Another bribe. This puts all of Burisma and Zlochevski's payments under even more suspicion, including the payments to Biden.

It's a continuation of a pattern of bribery.

Then you can investigate Zlochevski, but not Biden.

That's simply a lie.

But you have no evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden. You have evidence of wrongdoing by Zlochevski.

Probable cause needs to be specific to the person being investigated.

You don't need probable cause to investigate in the first place, jackass. Hunter Biden never had diplomatic immunity. Of course Joe Biden can hide behind his diplomat status, but Hunter was not a diplomat.

Hunter Biden is a person of interest because he was on the Burisma board of directors. He's the director who was in charge of Burisma's legal team and his firm received extremely large payments from Zlochevsky. And Zlochevsky has been know to use bribes to take care of legal issues.

Hunter Biden confessed on TV that Zlochevsky would not have made him a Burisma director if his father wasn't the made the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine.

Joe Biden confessed that he got rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

The abundance of circumstantial evidence is plenty of reasonable suspicion to make it prudent for a prosecutor to open an investigation. It would be grossly negligent for a prosecutor to ignore the Bidens' conflicts of interest.

But there’s no evidence that ties Hunter Biden to any bribes.

So there’s no basis for investigation.

Hunter Biden cannot have a conflict of interest as he’s not a member of government. Joe Biden is exempt from conflict of interest laws, a fact pointed out by Trump, who would never be able to retain ownership of his company as president.

There is no evidence to suggest that firing of Shokin was in any way related to Hunter Biden’s position on that board.

There's a ton of evidence!

Dozens of payments were made to Rosemont Seneca by Burisma, an entity known to use bribery. The bank records of every one of those payments is evidence!

Biden confessed in a live stream that he extorted Ukrainian officials into firing Shokin. That video is evidence!

Shokin testified under oath that he was fired because he wouldn't drop the criminal case against Burisma. The transcript of that deposition is evidence!

 

[kaz]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

 

[colfax_m]

Who cares? Let’s say it was a totally irrational decision. But it’s not illegal to make irrational hires and pay them too much money.

If it’s not illegal, you can’t investigate it. The question is irrelevant.

In some cases it certainly is illegal.

Burisma sent a lot of money to Rosemont Seneca, Biden's law firm. It's not necessarily illegal for a corporation in Ukraine to make payments to a board member's company, but is has to be for actual services rendered. Otherwise it's illegal.

That is one of the issues Ukraine is investigating.

Is there credible evidence to suggest that there were no services rendered by Biden?

If no services were rendered, there would be no evidence.

What they want is documentation that services were rendered. And PG Shokin wanted to interview Burisma's board of directors, including Hunter Biden, regarding many other issues too.

Quid Pro Joe extorted Ukraine's government to get Shokin removed and replaced with his corrupt puppet, Lutsenko. So Burisma was off the hook. But not anymore. Zelenski won and there's a new administration and they are reviewing all of Burisma cases.

And the Shokin assassination attempt is also under investigation. Biden obviously had a motive to kill Shokin, so he's naturally a suspect. And just a month after the assassination attempt, Joe Biden started pressuring Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to fire Shokin. So that raises some eyebrows too.

So you have no reason to believe that Hunter Biden failed to perform services for his salary, but you want to investigate anyway?

That would be engaging in a political witch hunt without predication. Not legal.

Bullshit. It's perfectly legal for the PGO and NABU to investigate all payments made by Burisma because of a pattern of corrupt activity, which has included bribery.

Since Joe Biden was caught on a live stream confessing that he extorted Ukraine officials into firing the Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and Zlochevsky, there is plenty of reasonable suspicion that the payments to Biden's firm were nothing but a bribe. Especially since Burisma and Rosemont Seneca have refused to present any contemporaneous documentation showing that Biden's firm rendered any sort of legitimate legal services to Burisma. Likely because they don't exist.

Hell, just a couple of months ago they were caught trying to bribe investigators on behalf of Zlochevsky AGAIN!.

Ukraine seizes $6million to stop probe of firm that hired Hunter Biden

Ukrainian authorities seized $6 million allegedly used for a bribe scheme - the largest in the country's history - linked to Burisma Holdings, a gas company which gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There's definitely a pattern of corruption, including extortion and bribery. Therefore there's plenty of reasonable suspicion to investigate the payments to Biden.

Given the huge amount of evidence, I think we both know beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were a bribe.

You should have read your article, there were no ties to Biden:
The seizure, which is the largest in Ukraine's history, had no ties to Biden, say authorities, who showed stacks of $100 bill at a press conference Saturday.

I did read the article, jackass.

It's more evidence a pattern of corrupt behavior by Zlochevski. Another bribe. This puts all of Burisma and Zlochevski's payments under even more suspicion, including the payments to Biden.

It's a continuation of a pattern of bribery.

Then you can investigate Zlochevski, but not Biden.

That's simply a lie.

But you have no evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden. You have evidence of wrongdoing by Zlochevski.

Probable cause needs to be specific to the person being investigated.

You don't need probable cause to investigate in the first place, jackass. Hunter Biden never had diplomatic immunity. Of course Joe Biden can hide behind his diplomat status, but Hunter was not a diplomat.

Hunter Biden is a person of interest because he was on the Burisma board of directors. He's the director who was in charge of Burisma's legal team and his firm received extremely large payments from Zlochevsky. And Zlochevsky has been know to use bribes to take care of legal issues.

Hunter Biden confessed on TV that Zlochevsky would not have made him a Burisma director if his father wasn't the made the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine.

Joe Biden confessed that he got rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

The abundance of circumstantial evidence is plenty of reasonable suspicion to make it prudent for a prosecutor to open an investigation. It would be grossly negligent for a prosecutor to ignore the Bidens' conflicts of interest.

But there’s no evidence that ties Hunter Biden to any bribes.

So there’s no basis for investigation.

Hunter Biden cannot have a conflict of interest as he’s not a member of government. Joe Biden is exempt from conflict of interest laws, a fact pointed out by Trump, who would never be able to retain ownership of his company as president.

There is no evidence to suggest that firing of Shokin was in any way related to Hunter Biden’s position on that board.

There's a ton of evidence!

Dozens of payments were made to Rosemont Seneca by Burisma, an entity known to use bribery. The bank records of every one of those payments is evidence!

Biden confessed in a live stream that he extorted Ukrainian officials into firing Shokin. That video is evidence!

Shokin testified under oath that he was fired because he wouldn't drop the criminal case against Burisma. The transcript of that deposition is evidence!

Payments for being a board of director is not evidence of illegal activity without further evidence.

Biden saying that Shokin being fired because he was corrupt is not evidence of illegal activity without further information.

Shokin is not a credible witness. Allegations have to come from credible sources to be used as evidence of illegal activity.

Strike out.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

Instead of addressing a point substantively, you whined that you said similar and I said same, as if that has any substantive effect on the point. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

 

[kaz]

Who cares? Let’s say it was a totally irrational decision. But it’s not illegal to make irrational hires and pay them too much money.

If it’s not illegal, you can’t investigate it. The question is irrelevant.

In some cases it certainly is illegal.

Burisma sent a lot of money to Rosemont Seneca, Biden's law firm. It's not necessarily illegal for a corporation in Ukraine to make payments to a board member's company, but is has to be for actual services rendered. Otherwise it's illegal.

That is one of the issues Ukraine is investigating.

Is there credible evidence to suggest that there were no services rendered by Biden?

If no services were rendered, there would be no evidence.

What they want is documentation that services were rendered. And PG Shokin wanted to interview Burisma's board of directors, including Hunter Biden, regarding many other issues too.

Quid Pro Joe extorted Ukraine's government to get Shokin removed and replaced with his corrupt puppet, Lutsenko. So Burisma was off the hook. But not anymore. Zelenski won and there's a new administration and they are reviewing all of Burisma cases.

And the Shokin assassination attempt is also under investigation. Biden obviously had a motive to kill Shokin, so he's naturally a suspect. And just a month after the assassination attempt, Joe Biden started pressuring Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to fire Shokin. So that raises some eyebrows too.

So you have no reason to believe that Hunter Biden failed to perform services for his salary, but you want to investigate anyway?

That would be engaging in a political witch hunt without predication. Not legal.

Bullshit. It's perfectly legal for the PGO and NABU to investigate all payments made by Burisma because of a pattern of corrupt activity, which has included bribery.

Since Joe Biden was caught on a live stream confessing that he extorted Ukraine officials into firing the Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and Zlochevsky, there is plenty of reasonable suspicion that the payments to Biden's firm were nothing but a bribe. Especially since Burisma and Rosemont Seneca have refused to present any contemporaneous documentation showing that Biden's firm rendered any sort of legitimate legal services to Burisma. Likely because they don't exist.

Hell, just a couple of months ago they were caught trying to bribe investigators on behalf of Zlochevsky AGAIN!.

Ukraine seizes $6million to stop probe of firm that hired Hunter Biden

Ukrainian authorities seized $6 million allegedly used for a bribe scheme - the largest in the country's history - linked to Burisma Holdings, a gas company which gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There's definitely a pattern of corruption, including extortion and bribery. Therefore there's plenty of reasonable suspicion to investigate the payments to Biden.

Given the huge amount of evidence, I think we both know beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were a bribe.

You should have read your article, there were no ties to Biden:
The seizure, which is the largest in Ukraine's history, had no ties to Biden, say authorities, who showed stacks of $100 bill at a press conference Saturday.

I did read the article, jackass.

It's more evidence a pattern of corrupt behavior by Zlochevski. Another bribe. This puts all of Burisma and Zlochevski's payments under even more suspicion, including the payments to Biden.

It's a continuation of a pattern of bribery.

Then you can investigate Zlochevski, but not Biden.

That's simply a lie.

But you have no evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden. You have evidence of wrongdoing by Zlochevski.

Probable cause needs to be specific to the person being investigated.

You don't need probable cause to investigate in the first place, jackass. Hunter Biden never had diplomatic immunity. Of course Joe Biden can hide behind his diplomat status, but Hunter was not a diplomat.

Hunter Biden is a person of interest because he was on the Burisma board of directors. He's the director who was in charge of Burisma's legal team and his firm received extremely large payments from Zlochevsky. And Zlochevsky has been know to use bribes to take care of legal issues.

Hunter Biden confessed on TV that Zlochevsky would not have made him a Burisma director if his father wasn't the made the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine.

Joe Biden confessed that he got rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

The abundance of circumstantial evidence is plenty of reasonable suspicion to make it prudent for a prosecutor to open an investigation. It would be grossly negligent for a prosecutor to ignore the Bidens' conflicts of interest.

But there’s no evidence that ties Hunter Biden to any bribes.

So there’s no basis for investigation.

Hunter Biden cannot have a conflict of interest as he’s not a member of government. Joe Biden is exempt from conflict of interest laws, a fact pointed out by Trump, who would never be able to retain ownership of his company as president.

There is no evidence to suggest that firing of Shokin was in any way related to Hunter Biden’s position on that board.

There's a ton of evidence!

Dozens of payments were made to Rosemont Seneca by Burisma, an entity known to use bribery. The bank records of every one of those payments is evidence!

Biden confessed in a live stream that he extorted Ukrainian officials into firing Shokin. That video is evidence!

Shokin testified under oath that he was fired because he wouldn't drop the criminal case against Burisma. The transcript of that deposition is evidence!

Payments for being a board of director is not evidence of illegal activity without further evidence.

Biden saying that Shokin being fired because he was corrupt is not evidence of illegal activity without further information.

Shokin is not a credible witness. Allegations have to come from credible sources to be used as evidence of illegal activity.

Strike out.

When Biden is responsible for the Ukraine relationship and Ukraine is paying his son millions of dollars, that is clear conflict of interest. Obviously you have no business or management experience if you don't know that

 

[kaz]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

Instead of addressing a point substantively, you whined that you said similar and I said same, as if that has any substantive effect on the point. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

Every time we discussed a point you changed the words changing the meaning of what was said. Go ahead and cry, little girl, here's a tissue

 

[busybee01]

Who cares? Let’s say it was a totally irrational decision. But it’s not illegal to make irrational hires and pay them too much money.

If it’s not illegal, you can’t investigate it. The question is irrelevant.

In some cases it certainly is illegal.

Burisma sent a lot of money to Rosemont Seneca, Biden's law firm. It's not necessarily illegal for a corporation in Ukraine to make payments to a board member's company, but is has to be for actual services rendered. Otherwise it's illegal.

That is one of the issues Ukraine is investigating.

Is there credible evidence to suggest that there were no services rendered by Biden?

If no services were rendered, there would be no evidence.

What they want is documentation that services were rendered. And PG Shokin wanted to interview Burisma's board of directors, including Hunter Biden, regarding many other issues too.

Quid Pro Joe extorted Ukraine's government to get Shokin removed and replaced with his corrupt puppet, Lutsenko. So Burisma was off the hook. But not anymore. Zelenski won and there's a new administration and they are reviewing all of Burisma cases.

And the Shokin assassination attempt is also under investigation. Biden obviously had a motive to kill Shokin, so he's naturally a suspect. And just a month after the assassination attempt, Joe Biden started pressuring Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to fire Shokin. So that raises some eyebrows too.

So you have no reason to believe that Hunter Biden failed to perform services for his salary, but you want to investigate anyway?

That would be engaging in a political witch hunt without predication. Not legal.

Bullshit. It's perfectly legal for the PGO and NABU to investigate all payments made by Burisma because of a pattern of corrupt activity, which has included bribery.

Since Joe Biden was caught on a live stream confessing that he extorted Ukraine officials into firing the Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and Zlochevsky, there is plenty of reasonable suspicion that the payments to Biden's firm were nothing but a bribe. Especially since Burisma and Rosemont Seneca have refused to present any contemporaneous documentation showing that Biden's firm rendered any sort of legitimate legal services to Burisma. Likely because they don't exist.

Hell, just a couple of months ago they were caught trying to bribe investigators on behalf of Zlochevsky AGAIN!.

Ukraine seizes $6million to stop probe of firm that hired Hunter Biden

Ukrainian authorities seized $6 million allegedly used for a bribe scheme - the largest in the country's history - linked to Burisma Holdings, a gas company which gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There's definitely a pattern of corruption, including extortion and bribery. Therefore there's plenty of reasonable suspicion to investigate the payments to Biden.

Given the huge amount of evidence, I think we both know beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were a bribe.

You should have read your article, there were no ties to Biden:
The seizure, which is the largest in Ukraine's history, had no ties to Biden, say authorities, who showed stacks of $100 bill at a press conference Saturday.

I did read the article, jackass.

It's more evidence a pattern of corrupt behavior by Zlochevski. Another bribe. This puts all of Burisma and Zlochevski's payments under even more suspicion, including the payments to Biden.

It's a continuation of a pattern of bribery.

Then you can investigate Zlochevski, but not Biden.

That's simply a lie.

But you have no evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden. You have evidence of wrongdoing by Zlochevski.

Probable cause needs to be specific to the person being investigated.

You don't need probable cause to investigate in the first place, jackass. Hunter Biden never had diplomatic immunity. Of course Joe Biden can hide behind his diplomat status, but Hunter was not a diplomat.

Hunter Biden is a person of interest because he was on the Burisma board of directors. He's the director who was in charge of Burisma's legal team and his firm received extremely large payments from Zlochevsky. And Zlochevsky has been know to use bribes to take care of legal issues.

Hunter Biden confessed on TV that Zlochevsky would not have made him a Burisma director if his father wasn't the made the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine.

Joe Biden confessed that he got rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

The abundance of circumstantial evidence is plenty of reasonable suspicion to make it prudent for a prosecutor to open an investigation. It would be grossly negligent for a prosecutor to ignore the Bidens' conflicts of interest.

But there’s no evidence that ties Hunter Biden to any bribes.

So there’s no basis for investigation.

Hunter Biden cannot have a conflict of interest as he’s not a member of government. Joe Biden is exempt from conflict of interest laws, a fact pointed out by Trump, who would never be able to retain ownership of his company as president.

There is no evidence to suggest that firing of Shokin was in any way related to Hunter Biden’s position on that board.

There's a ton of evidence!

Dozens of payments were made to Rosemont Seneca by Burisma, an entity known to use bribery. The bank records of every one of those payments is evidence!

Biden confessed in a live stream that he extorted Ukrainian officials into firing Shokin. That video is evidence!

Shokin testified under oath that he was fired because he wouldn't drop the criminal case against Burisma. The transcript of that deposition is evidence!

Shokin was spreading Russian propaganda. Have him come to the US and testify under oath. If he lies he goes to jail. He dropped the case against Burisma BEFORE Hunter Biden joined the Board.

The video is evidence that the Obama Administration was serious about Ukraine cracking down on corruption. The IMF, other world leaders, and anti-corruption activists in Ukraine supported that.

The payments were made for consulting services. How much of that went to Hunter Biden is unknown. Bribery usually means that one side wants the other side to do something. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden asked for any favors even if the payments went to him. Joe Biden wanted investigations of corruption and Burisma would have been one of those investigations.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

Instead of addressing a point substantively, you whined that you said similar and I said same, as if that has any substantive effect on the point. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

Every time we discussed a point you changed the words changing the meaning of what was said. Go ahead and cry, little girl, here's a tissue

Oh, sure. Because the words “same” and “similar” have such different substantially different meanings.

Loser.

 

[Muhammed]

Who cares? Let’s say it was a totally irrational decision. But it’s not illegal to make irrational hires and pay them too much money.

If it’s not illegal, you can’t investigate it. The question is irrelevant.

In some cases it certainly is illegal.

Burisma sent a lot of money to Rosemont Seneca, Biden's law firm. It's not necessarily illegal for a corporation in Ukraine to make payments to a board member's company, but is has to be for actual services rendered. Otherwise it's illegal.

That is one of the issues Ukraine is investigating.

Is there credible evidence to suggest that there were no services rendered by Biden?

If no services were rendered, there would be no evidence.

What they want is documentation that services were rendered. And PG Shokin wanted to interview Burisma's board of directors, including Hunter Biden, regarding many other issues too.

Quid Pro Joe extorted Ukraine's government to get Shokin removed and replaced with his corrupt puppet, Lutsenko. So Burisma was off the hook. But not anymore. Zelenski won and there's a new administration and they are reviewing all of Burisma cases.

And the Shokin assassination attempt is also under investigation. Biden obviously had a motive to kill Shokin, so he's naturally a suspect. And just a month after the assassination attempt, Joe Biden started pressuring Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk to fire Shokin. So that raises some eyebrows too.

So you have no reason to believe that Hunter Biden failed to perform services for his salary, but you want to investigate anyway?

That would be engaging in a political witch hunt without predication. Not legal.

Bullshit. It's perfectly legal for the PGO and NABU to investigate all payments made by Burisma because of a pattern of corrupt activity, which has included bribery.

Since Joe Biden was caught on a live stream confessing that he extorted Ukraine officials into firing the Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and Zlochevsky, there is plenty of reasonable suspicion that the payments to Biden's firm were nothing but a bribe. Especially since Burisma and Rosemont Seneca have refused to present any contemporaneous documentation showing that Biden's firm rendered any sort of legitimate legal services to Burisma. Likely because they don't exist.

Hell, just a couple of months ago they were caught trying to bribe investigators on behalf of Zlochevsky AGAIN!.

Ukraine seizes $6million to stop probe of firm that hired Hunter Biden

Ukrainian authorities seized $6 million allegedly used for a bribe scheme - the largest in the country's history - linked to Burisma Holdings, a gas company which gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There's definitely a pattern of corruption, including extortion and bribery. Therefore there's plenty of reasonable suspicion to investigate the payments to Biden.

Given the huge amount of evidence, I think we both know beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were a bribe.

You should have read your article, there were no ties to Biden:
The seizure, which is the largest in Ukraine's history, had no ties to Biden, say authorities, who showed stacks of $100 bill at a press conference Saturday.

I did read the article, jackass.

It's more evidence a pattern of corrupt behavior by Zlochevski. Another bribe. This puts all of Burisma and Zlochevski's payments under even more suspicion, including the payments to Biden.

It's a continuation of a pattern of bribery.

Then you can investigate Zlochevski, but not Biden.

That's simply a lie.

But you have no evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden. You have evidence of wrongdoing by Zlochevski.

Probable cause needs to be specific to the person being investigated.

You don't need probable cause to investigate in the first place, jackass. Hunter Biden never had diplomatic immunity. Of course Joe Biden can hide behind his diplomat status, but Hunter was not a diplomat.

Hunter Biden is a person of interest because he was on the Burisma board of directors. He's the director who was in charge of Burisma's legal team and his firm received extremely large payments from Zlochevsky. And Zlochevsky has been know to use bribes to take care of legal issues.

Hunter Biden confessed on TV that Zlochevsky would not have made him a Burisma director if his father wasn't the made the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine.

Joe Biden confessed that he got rid of the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

The abundance of circumstantial evidence is plenty of reasonable suspicion to make it prudent for a prosecutor to open an investigation. It would be grossly negligent for a prosecutor to ignore the Bidens' conflicts of interest.

But there’s no evidence that ties Hunter Biden to any bribes.

So there’s no basis for investigation.

Hunter Biden cannot have a conflict of interest as he’s not a member of government. Joe Biden is exempt from conflict of interest laws, a fact pointed out by Trump, who would never be able to retain ownership of his company as president.

There is no evidence to suggest that firing of Shokin was in any way related to Hunter Biden’s position on that board.

There's a ton of evidence!

Dozens of payments were made to Rosemont Seneca by Burisma, an entity known to use bribery. The bank records of every one of those payments is evidence!

Biden confessed in a live stream that he extorted Ukrainian officials into firing Shokin. That video is evidence!

Shokin testified under oath that he was fired because he wouldn't drop the criminal case against Burisma. The transcript of that deposition is evidence!

Payments for being a board of director is not evidence of illegal activity without further evidence.

Biden saying that Shokin being fired because he was corrupt is not evidence of illegal activity without further information.

Shokin is not a credible witness. Allegations have to come from credible sources to be used as evidence of illegal activity.

Strike out.

Bullshit. It's all evidence that Zlochevsky bribed Joe Biden via payments to Hunter Biden in order to get the prosecutor general fired. And an investigation to find more evidence is prudent. That is why Ukraine is reviewing all of the Burisma cases in the first place, dumbass.

Unfortunately Hunter Biden refused to cooperate with prosecutors. That alone is suspicious to any investigator. They only wanted to interview him as a potential witness, he wasn't the target of the investigation. What was he so afraid of?

Shokin is very credible. Joe Biden is not credible. He got caught blatantly lying to millions of people just the other day on national TV.

His allegations that Shokin was corrupt have proven to be unfounded. He has never even been indicted for anything, let alone convicted.

The "solid" convict Biden installed, Yuriy Lutsenko, was never an attorney, didn't even go to law school and was proven to be corrupt even before Biden installed him into the PGO. Biden already knew Lutsenko was corrupt, because he had served prison time for corruption in office. And he's currently facing more corruption charges. He has fled the country, like Zlochevsky. Therefore Biden's claim that he had Shokin removed to weed out corruption is just fucking ridiculous. You have to be one extremely stupid individual to believe that bullshit.

But if there's one thing that all of you TDS afflicted morons have in common, it's your extreme stupidity.

 

[kaz]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

Instead of addressing a point substantively, you whined that you said similar and I said same, as if that has any substantive effect on the point. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

Every time we discussed a point you changed the words changing the meaning of what was said. Go ahead and cry, little girl, here's a tissue

Oh, sure. Because the words “same” and “similar” have such different substantially different meanings.

Loser.

Strawman

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

I said Trump was way better than Obama, he was. You keep constantly changing the context to avoid owning up to your own bull shit.

Obama was painfully slow, a terrible recovery. Trump blew that away. Now you're twisting that to being an all time historical reference. I said Trump blew the roof off Obama's jobless, lame, virtually non-existent recovery.

You're a contradiction in a hypocrisy in a misquote

I asked why didn’t Trump blow the roof off , you said he did. Then you pretended you didn’t. Now you’re pretending that I lied about it.

You're still obviously removing the context for your agenda to make my quote sound like it wasn't.

And I just addressed that. Your question was in the context of Obama. Trump blew the roof of Obama's numbers. You keep deleting the context because you know you're lying

Such a hypocrite. Accusing me of deleting context when you left out replies that were proving you wrong.

He should have blown the roof off the sucker just getting back to where we started.

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did. This is you again criticizing Trump for shutting down the economy while demand he shut down the economy.

From the discussion in the quotes (above):

Colfax: If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

kaz: You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away

That was your question and my response. Explain without being pedantic how that is saying I said Trump did blow people away

And you’re back to waffling all over the place. can’t tell what the hell you’re saying because you just change your argument every 5 seconds.

One second you’re saying Trump did something great. Next second you’re saying you never said that. Then you’re back to saying he did amazing.

Im done.

Right. I said Trump blew the roof off Obama's non-recovery, exactly as I said. What confused you about that?

You obviously know that and were lying since you repeatedly kept removing the context from the quote

Makes zero difference. Trump’s economic numbers are minimally different from Obama’s.

Which would make sense other than Obama started at the bottom of a deep recession and should have had fantastic numbers for free just by ending the recession and the economy recovering. Yet Trump still had better numbers. He blew the cover off the ball compared to Obama for sure

Trump did not blow the roof off of any of Obama’s numbers.

Which is what I’ve been saying this entire time but you decided to throw a massive multi page hissy fit trying to avoid talking about it.

You added the word "numbers" to change the context of the quote yet again. I didn't say Trump's numbers blew away Obama's numbers anywhere. You're such a total liar. It's the short putt Obama had to great numbers that he face planted on.

Trump's numbers were "better," that's true. But I said it was the economic performance that blew the roof off Obama. It did. Obama got an economy at the depths of a deep recession. It's remarkable how bad he was to not be able to recover from that, he was truly terrible. And I can tell you what he did. He kept threatening business with more taxes, regulation and government hate. No way they were investing when the President kept saying he would destroy them

Why can't you provide any data to back up your delusions??

View attachment 380090

A graph that starts at the bottom of the recession when Obama took office doesn't contradict anything I said

but according to morons like you -- Trump also inherited a recession -- in fact, the economy was a disaster under Obama..

Or was that just bullshit??

Pretty much like the bullshit you are spouting now?

Trump did so much better than Obama by having the same performance.

Because the standard for Obama is waaaay up here and the standard for Trump is waaaay down there.

Changing words again. I said Trump's performance was way better. It's his numbers that I said were similar. I said they were better, I did not say the same. But I explained why that's different.

I'm tired of your constantly changing the words from one post to the next to the next to persist in your lie. I'm not going to keep playing this game with you. Address my posts and stop misquoting me

Oh, okay. The numbers weren’t the same, they were similar.

As if that makes any difference.

Rather than make arguments about substance, you bitch and whine about language that has no effect on meaning. Loser.

So his numbers were the similar, but performance better. I supppse you define performance by feelings and not data? That’s what I’ve observed in the Trump cult. Facts matter far less than feelings. Trump knows this. It’s why he’s been successful. He sells feelings.

Awww, and colfax is starting to cry. I'm so sad for you ...



Sorry guy, I tried.

OK, I'll explain this one more time. Then you're on your own.

Let's say in one year, W is President, the economy is in a recession and goes down 4%.

The next year it goes up 4.2%, which undoes the 4% loss.

Since the economy went down and then up, it's a net zero for W.

However, in this case, the economy went down under W, then Obama got it.

So just recovering means he gets a nice freebe. A big increase in economic growth during his Presidency for nothing, just the economy going back to where it was.

Trump's numbers were a little better, but that was the great recession, a very deep recession. Obama had a HUGE built in economic increase for totally free. And he botched it and still was below Trump.

I know of no other way to explain it to someone as mathematically inept as you are. It's on you now to grasp it

But, if we believe that Obama so dramatically underperformed, that means there was still a large potential deficit of economic output when Trump took office. Which means, if it truly was Obama who botched it, then the economic output would have surged upon him taking office. Coincidentally, this is exactly what Trump said would happen. Trump would have “blown the roof” off of Obama’s numbers as you claim.

But that didn’t happen.

Actually the stock market did see it happening since it's way up even after the Biden virus. So you're wrong ... again ...

Stock market is not the economy.

OMG you're stupid. I was addressing your question that no one is seeing the improvement in Trump's performance. What is wrong with you? You're dumb as fucking shit

I didn’t ask a question. I made an assertion when I said economic output would have increased under Trump if your framework was true. You replied that the stock market increased. The stock market is not economic output. These are very different things.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

Instead of addressing a point substantively, you whined that you said similar and I said same, as if that has any substantive effect on the point. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

Every time we discussed a point you changed the words changing the meaning of what was said. Go ahead and cry, little girl, here's a tissue

Oh, sure. Because the words “same” and “similar” have such different substantially different meanings.

Loser.

Strawman

It’s exactly what you did. Complained that I changed the word “similar” to “same”.

Changing words again. I said Trump's performance was way better. It's his numbers that I said were similar. I said they were better, I did not say the same. But I explained why that's different.

 

[kaz]

Yes, there were several posts in the middle, all were of YOU saying Trump was supposed to shock and awe you, none of me saying that he did

Except for the reply where you LITERALLY said he did.

He did.

Oh, the one you just quoted. Oh wait, you didn't. Liar.

I didn’t what? Just quote you saying what you are claiming you didn’t say?

I quoted you, twice now. Inability to recognize reality is a sign of mental disorder. But I think you’re actually just trolling.

Bullshit Democrat tactics:

1) Ignore requests for quotes for your bull shit claims

2) Then claim you already provided quotes you didn't provide

In post 261, I provided the quote you requested.

That post doesn't say anything. You cut the entire conversation, liar

It includes the quote of you saying the thing you said you didn’t say.

It’s right there. Black and white. Clear as crystal. You lose. Good day, sir!

"He did" could mean anything, Darline

Not in this case. It was an immediate to a question. Want to see what it that question was?

No, you cut it from the quote box chain

So what, dumbfuck? All the posts are still there.

​

​

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

​

​

He did.​

​

You're a day late and a dollar short. We already covered that

No, all that happened was your insane semantic gymnastics to bend and scurry away from the dumb shit you say rather than make an argument.

colfax: No I'm not, kaz, you are!

When you have nothing, repeat to me what I said to you like any other playgrounding third grader

Instead of addressing a point substantively, you whined that you said similar and I said same, as if that has any substantive effect on the point. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

Every time we discussed a point you changed the words changing the meaning of what was said. Go ahead and cry, little girl, here's a tissue

Oh, sure. Because the words “same” and “similar” have such different substantially different meanings.

Loser.

Strawman

It’s exactly what you did. Complained that I changed the word “similar” to “same”.

Changing words again. I said Trump's performance was way better. It's his numbers that I said were similar. I said they were better, I did not say the same. But I explained why that's different.

That was only one of the many word changes that you made. This is the endless bull shit you've pulled through this whole thing. Like here you say that was the objection I made as if it was the only one. You're still doing it

 

[Faun]

Hunter Biden’s $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly ‘RESOLVED’ Despite Claiming NO Income​

Hunter Biden's $450,000 Tax Debt Gets Suddenly 'RESOLVED' Despite Claiming NO Income

No reporters are asking about the money.

us24news.com

23 Aug 2020 ~~ By Jonathan Jones

A large tax debt owed to the government by the son of former Vice President Joe Biden has disappeared, according to a report.
Hunter Biden, who has faced scrutiny over allegedly profiting from businesses internationally using his father’s influence, recently told a court in his Arkansas paternity case that he was out of work and broke.
The Washington Free Beacon reported Saturday that despite the younger Biden’s reported personal and financial woes, he was able to resolve a six-figure tax debt in a short period of time.
“Hunter Biden was hit with a $450,000 lien in July over delinquent state income taxes, which he paid off in six days despite having no discernible income,” the Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman reported.
The ability to pay nearly half a million dollars in back taxes in less than a week seems to contradict statements from Biden to an Arkansas court that he could not afford to pay child support.
In January, Biden agreed to pay the mother of a child he fathered in Arkansas, despite not having a job, retroactive to November 2018, Fox News reported.
Biden failed to turn over documents relevant to his income and was held in contempt of court, according to Fox.
After a court-ordered paternity test, Biden was found to be the child’s father.
There was also a legal dustup concerning how much Biden’s permanent monthly child support payment would be calculated.
The paternity and child support case in Arkansas furthers the mystery surrounding Biden’s ability to pay off the reported tax debt.
“A spokesman for D.C.’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer confirmed that Hunter Biden’s lien was released on July 15 after the ‘tax issue was resolved.’ The office declined to say whether Biden had paid off the debt,” The Free Beacon reported.
It is unclear what income, if any, Biden has at the moment, as his father seeks to unseat President Donald Trump in November.
Biden has been linked to a series of financial scandals.
After being hired by Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings in 2014, Biden was paid a salary of $83,333 a month, Fox reported.
The high salary was paid despite the former VP’s son holding a job as a non-executive “ceremonial figure.”
It was also said by three individuals close to Biden’s Burisma deal that he never visited Ukraine, despite the exorbitant salary, according to Reuters.
Biden was reportedly paid that salary from April 2014 until November 2015.
[Snip]
In Biden’s 2017 divorce, his former wife claimed he sent the family into financial ruin by spending money on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations.”
Kathleen Biden said the family was left with massive debts by Biden’s alleged activities, including tax debt, medical bills and credit cards that were maxed out.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Comment:
Hmm...., If it is any consolation, I don’t think Hunter is going to help him during the election.
Trump is going to highlight this early and often and frankly it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong with the Ukraine and China deals, but wait.... there is even more to come out.
The Biden’s played the same scheme in other Eastern European countries as well as Iraq where Biden’s brother landed a lucrative contract in an area where he had no expertise.
It would be a shame if Hunter put all those dollars up hi nose...
the question is where is that $1.4 billion dollar China deal money?

Hunter Biden was not hired to the Burisma board as a "ceremonial figure". He was hired to head Burisma's legal team.

Ukrainian Employer of Joe Biden’s Son Hires a D.C. Lobbyist

An obscure private Ukrainian natural gas company has been hiring friends and family of Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, while seeking to influence Congress

time.com

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

JULY 7, 2014 10:39 PM EDT

When Vice President Joe Biden’s son, R. Hunter Biden, joined the board of a private Ukrainian oil and natural gas company this spring, he explained his new job as a legal one, disconnected from any effort to influence the Obama Administration. In a press release, the younger Biden boasted of his abilities on issues like improving corporate transparency.

And Burisma certainly had their share of legal troubles for Hunter Biden to solve for them. Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevskyi had fled the country to Moscow to avoid prosecution.

Joe Biden held back $1 billion in US treasury loan guarantees, which were needed to secure over $30 brillion in other loans to bail out Ukraine.

Biden certainly took care of Burisma's legal problems. He gave President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk an ultimatum. Either fire the prosecutor general who is investigating Burisma, and replace him with a puppet, or Ukraine becomes financially insolvent.

That puppet was Biden's "solid", Yuriy Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption in office until his sentence was commuted after an appeal by Hunter Biden's fellow Burisma board member, Alexander Kwasniewski.
,

Ukraine: Yanukovych Pardons Lutsenko

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has pardoned jailed former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko, a close ally of imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

www.rferl.org

But there was a problem. Biden's corrupt puppet didn't have a law degree and had never practiced law. He never even went to law school, fer crissakes. And under Ukrainian law, the Prosecutor General was required to have a law degree and a minimum number of years experience as an attorney.

Facing Quid Pro Joe's threats, the Ukrainian parliament had no choice. In a special session, they actually changed the law that required the country's top attorney be an actual fucking real life attorney with a law degree and everything.

As much of scandal as that was, no matter how embarrassing and degrading it was, no matter how outraged the people were, the Ukrainian parliament had to do it. Joe Biden made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

It's horrible.

So they went with someone that had no training or experience in Ukrainian law???

We went with a president who had no prior training or even the slightest knowledge of the constitution -- so lets not pretend that experience and expertise is supposed to matter now...You trumpers take pride in hating expertise....

"Expertise", Biff? Oh you mean like Barack Obama's? The guy never so much as ran a lemonade stand in his entire life and you made him President of the United States! The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has been a business executive for most of his adult life and THAT expertise is what he used to give us some of the best economic numbers we've ever seen prior to the pandemic shutting down the country! He'll use that same expertise to help get us out of the recession that we're now in...or you can put Joe Biden in...someone who has no expertise fixing economies or creating jobs!

GDP growth of 2.4% in 2019 is not anywhere near the best economic numbers we’ve ever seen.

This myth that the economy was so amazing, even prior to COVID, is absurd.

JObs everywhere, wages actually gong up not down like they do under Obama, stock market at an all time high-------and you think you can convince people that the economy wasn't the best. Keep dreaming.

Obama added 10 million jobs. Increasing wages. Stock market at all time highs.

Trump said it was a disaster.

It was a disaster. Obama started at the bottom of a recession. He should have blown the roof off the sucker just getting back to where we started. Instead he decided to scare the shit out of business what he was going to do to us next and caused the worst recession recovery ever. It was his fault, but he took no responsibility for his own fuck up

So all you have is a counterfactual?

If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did. This is you again criticizing Trump for shutting down the economy while demand he shut down the economy.

Also, Trump didn't start at the bottom of a deep recession. Think about it. Try, really really hard

2.4% GDP growth is NOT blowing anyone away.

But I expect a litany or excuses as to why that’s good “considering”.

You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away.

Obama had lower GDP growth and he started with a tap in put at the bottom of a deep recession. Trump didn't have that huge advantage and did better. But the blowing people away shit is something you made up, not something I said

Dont be so pendantic.

why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

He did.

Blow people away, blow the roof off. Whatever. This is a meaningless nit pick for someone without a real argument.

Trump sure as hell didn’t campaign on promises of 2.4% GDP growth and in 2016 would have considered such a rate to be pathetic.

Pedantic is you exaggerating what people say, like saying Trump didn't blow people away when no one said he did

Good lord, that doesn’t even make sense. Do you know what pendantic even means?

I guess you’re done trying to convince me how great 2.4% GDP growth is. Too bad, I needed a laugh right about now.

Unlike you, I know how to spell it.

Yes, it means being annoying. Again, you're the one being pedantic. No one said "how great" anything is. I said Obama was a disappointment and now you're nagging that you wanted Trump to impress you, something I never said he did. That you keep going to a point I didn't make as if I did it totally pedantic

I asked why didn’t Trump blow the roof off the economy. You said he did. I quoted the relevant posts.

This is why trying to have a discussion with you is useless. You can’t even admit to the things you just said.

From the discussion in the quotes (above):

Colfax: If Obama was such a screw up, why didn’t Trump blow the roof off like you say?

kaz: You're going to have to remind me when I said Trump blew people away

That was your question and my response. Explain without being pedantic how that is saying I said Trump did blow people away

We are still waiting for you to show us how Obama was such a screw up -- especially in a comparative analysis to Trump context...

As we speak....Trump is running for president as if he hasn't been president for the past 4 years....that is pathetic...

Who is "us?" The voices in your head? Who is it you think you speak for? I bunch of imaginary people in your living room?

No, you kazzer, i.e., liar, he mean "us" as in the posters reading this thread. Don't think readers here don't notice you whine about him saying, "us," to avoid addressing his challenge. Just as you did with colfax_m by constantly crying how you said "blow the roof off," not, "blow people away," to avoid addressing his challenge. Your schtick fails you because you're a loser.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Adults understand it.

Patting your head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said

You poor kazzer, there are no adults doing that.

Can you translate your post to adult? Thanks!

Why? Adults understand it.

Adults patting you on the head and saying there there doesn't mean they understood what you said, kiddy.

If you could talk in adult, that would be great

View attachment 380139

LOL

You can't kaz your way out of this. Adults get it and no one's patting me on the head.

There there, kiddie. When you want to talk grown up let me know. In the mean time, here's a pat on the head and a ball. Look it's bouncy

LOL

So you kazzed, i.e., lied again. You said adults were patting me on the head when in fact, you're the only one wanting to do that.

An angry little tyke you are. Let me know when you want to talk grown up

LOL

Kaz thinks people who laugh at him are "angry."