You asked if Bondi’s presentation yesterday presented any facts. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that, at a minimum Biden violated Federal rules on ethics. I can’t count the number of times that as a contractor I’ve had to take these damn training courses.
What Biden did was the same type of thing I’ve seen people fired/disciplined for over and over again. There shouldn’t be two sets of rules for different people. What happened, at the very least, makes further inquiry/investigation reasonable.
Does it justify calling witnesses? Maybe. I’m not opposed to that. I am just opposed to it being blown off as “nothing to see here.”
“ Under the primary conflict of interest law, an employee must not participate in any particular matter affecting the employee’s financial interests, and the impartiality rule goes even further by focusing on appearance issues. This rule applies even when the employee is free of financial conflicts of interest.
Briefly stated, the impartiality rule requires an employee to consider appearance concerns before participating in a particular matter if someone close to the employee is involved as a party to that matter. This requirement to refrain from participating (or “recuse”) is designed to avoid the appearance of favoritism in government decision-making.
The rule is not implicated by everyone the employee knows, for example, mere friends and neighbors. Instead, the rule focuses on professional and family relationships. Among others, the rule arises based on the employee’s relationship with any member of the employee’s household, an outside employer, a spouse’s employer, any relative with whom the employee has a close personal relationship, or an outside organization in which the employee is an “active” member. The rule is also triggered by the employee’s relationship with individuals, clients, and organizations the employee has served professionally as an employee, attorney, contractor, etc., in the past year.
The duty to recuse comes up if one of these individuals and organizations is involved and if a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would be concerned about the employee’s impartiality. Because the rule is somewhat technical, employees should attend required ethics training to ensure that they understand how to make impartial decisions when performing their government jobs. Employees should also contact their agency ethics officials for assistance in applying the rule in specific cases.”
when Hunter accepted his position at Burisma.
The same way the Trumps should see the appearance of Ivanka and Jerrod in roles in US government.
As for Bondi and her pockmarked and mistake filled speech - as it turns out, this is the usual for Republicans to misrepresent facts and truths, offer debunked conspiracies while forwarding Trumps lies to a gullible public who rely on the hopes they could be telling the truth instead of selling more snake-oil.
You’ve been hoodwinked and still don’t know it even after all this man has lied to you about. Trump U, Stormy Daniels, the economy, HCare, Russia, Ukraine, all whom he has hired and the list goes on and on and on somuchso it’s almost impossible to list without spending an entire afternoon putting it to paper.
Grow or or grow a pair.
(no message)
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump-foundation.html
(no message)
if Conor had simply brought up irrelevant crap pulled by one of Trump’s boys to defend Hunter, that would be whataboutism. You know, the shit you guys pull all the time.
Pointing out that the source of info is crap is not.
See the difference?
You throw around. Much like the “Narrator”. I just like to break Conor Basils balls.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Why not refer the matter to the appropriate US agency to investigate?
Why not do so in 2017 vs 2019 when Biden 12 points ahead of Trump in one-on-one polling?
Wasn’t yesterday just an attempt to smear Biden after an unsuccessful effort to have Ukraine do so?
Maybe he didn't trust that internal investigations would go anywhere absent additional compelling evidence. I don't know that it matters.
You are inventing hypothetical explanations that fail the logic test.
You once posted that you would favor removal from office if military aid was in fact withheld for personal political gain. That is what happened.
It is complete nonsense that Trump had meritorious intentions. There is a reason why Rudy and Lev were his agents.
I can’t support the removal of a sitting President on assumptions of his intent. If the prosecution presents clear unarguable facts, I will support removal.
(no message)
(no message)