Well this is embarrassing but not surprised.

OllieC said:
Building real estate and selling neck ties edit: while not a president. What was Joe Biden’s role during crack head Hunters deals?
Click to expand...
Ivanka Trump received expedited trademarks from the government of China as late as 2018. She got three of the trademark approvals on the very day she dined with the Chinese President in 2017. While the trademarks are generally for fashion items, there were also trademarks approved for voting machines, nursing homes and sausage casings. One tranche of trademarks was granted one week before Ivanka's father lifted a ban on a Chinese 5G company which had violated U.S. sanctions. President Trumps's Chinese real estate shell company had activity as late as 2018 as well. This is all open-source info not reliant on a laptop whose backstory is bizarre even if it proves to be true and will take some time to sort out.
 
alnav said:
Ivanka Trump received expedited trademarks from the government of China as late as 2018. She got three of the trademark approvals on the very day she dined with the Chinese President in 2017. While the trademarks are generally for fashion items, there were also trademarks approved for voting machines, nursing homes and sausage casings. One tranche of trademarks was granted one week before Ivanka's father lifted a ban on a Chinese 5G company which had violated U.S. sanctions. President Trumps's Chinese real estate shell company had activity as late as 2018 as well. This is all open-source info not reliant on a laptop whose backstory is bizarre even if it proves to be true and will take some time to sort out.
Click to expand...
Well there ya' are, a trademark on sausage casings, that woman got to be crooked.;)

Speaking of sausage casings....Hunter should have got some samples from Ivanka, he could have handed them out down at the strip joint, maybe even tried one himself.:D
 
Also speaking of sausage casings, laptop meister Rudy Giuliani was apparently in the middle of extracting his in a prank that will be shown in the new Borat film. It's said to be super embarrassing so stay tuned for the release to streaming at the end of the week.
 
Giuliani has lost my vote if true. o_OI wonder if he has a crack pipe and texted his dad ?
 
Woody said:
Speaking of sausage casings....Hunter should have got some samples from Ivanka, he could have handed them out down at the strip joint, maybe even tried one himself.:D
Click to expand...
Jeffry would have stuck his Toobin it while on Zoom.
“Buhduh...bump......crash”
 
Last edited:
The latest polls WOW MAGA :eek::D;)

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—With less than two weeks until the election, a new poll of likely voters shows Donald J. Trump losing badly to Hunter Biden.

Though Hunter Biden holds a commanding lead over Trump nationally, the poll reveals that he also trounces the President in such key swing states as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Voters preferred Hunter Biden over Trump when asked who would do a better job of “handling the pandemic,” “creating jobs,” and “caring about people like me.”

In the most ominous news for the President, if Hunter Biden were somehow prosecuted, convicted, and locked up, voters would still choose him over Trump by a double-digit margin.
 
LMAO I guess they have never heard of Andy Borowitz. :D:D:D:eek:
 
Well this is rather embarrassing for Trump.
It seems the foreign fund payments Trump insisted Biden and Hunter took are not true just another lie being spread by Trump.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions.amp

Screenshot_20201024-003124_Chrome.jpg
 
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
3)Note that Hunter's two other partners (Gilliar and Walker)did not respond to WSJ news question about who was "the big guy." A 2017 text from Gilliar warns Bobulinski: "don't mention Joe being involved."

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
4) Bobulinski also presumably telling FBI he met with Joe, and that Joe was at some level aware of the deal. Note also that Biden camp did not provide answer to the WSJ news question about that meeting.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
5) So here are the right questions for Joe:
a) are you "big guy"? b) While Chinese $$ never materialized, were u at one point--via a Hunter--in line to have an equity share? c) Did u meet with Hunter's partner? d)how does any this comport w/ your claims to not talk biz w/Hunter?

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
 
MonacoMike said:
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
3)Note that Hunter's two other partners (Gilliar and Walker)did not respond to WSJ news question about who was "the big guy." A 2017 text from Gilliar warns Bobulinski: "don't mention Joe being involved."

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
4) Bobulinski also presumably telling FBI he met with Joe, and that Joe was at some level aware of the deal. Note also that Biden camp did not provide answer to the WSJ news question about that meeting.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
5) So here are the right questions for Joe:
a) are you "big guy"? b) While Chinese $$ never materialized, were u at one point--via a Hunter--in line to have an equity share? c) Did u meet with Hunter's partner? d)how does any this comport w/ your claims to not talk biz w/Hunter?

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
Click to expand...

Biden stated very clearly he did not accept any funds from China or any foreign sources. Absolutely no evidence has come forward to show otherwise.
 
MonacoMike said:
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
3)Note that Hunter's two other partners (Gilliar and Walker)did not respond to WSJ news question about who was "the big guy." A 2017 text from Gilliar warns Bobulinski: "don't mention Joe being involved."

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
4) Bobulinski also presumably telling FBI he met with Joe, and that Joe was at some level aware of the deal. Note also that Biden camp did not provide answer to the WSJ news question about that meeting.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
5) So here are the right questions for Joe:
a) are you "big guy"? b) While Chinese $$ never materialized, were u at one point--via a Hunter--in line to have an equity share? c) Did u meet with Hunter's partner? d)how does any this comport w/ your claims to not talk biz w/Hunter?

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
Click to expand...
Apparently the news side of the WSJ didn't agree with Strassel's piece, which was opinion and not a news article:
A Wall Street Journal columnist said Joe Biden was part of Hunter’s business deal. Hours later, its news reporters said the opposite.
Readers of the Wall Street Journal may have felt a bit of whiplash on Thursday over a news story and an opinion column that presented sharply conflicting accounts of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s alleged role in one of his son’s business ventures.
The Journal column — hailed as a bombshell before the final presidential debate by Biden critics, including President Trump — asserted that Biden was involved in a deal arranged by his son Hunter with a Chinese energy conglomerate in 2017.
Columnist Kimberley Strassel relied on the account of Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who provided documents that “suggest Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name and that Joe Biden was involved.”
But a few hours after Strassel’s column was published, the Journal’s news side offered a much different take.
“The venture . . . never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter,” Journal reporters Andrew Duehren and James Areddy wrote. “Corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.” The reporters also quoted another partner in the venture, James Gilliar, who said he was “unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president.”
Dueling accounts from the same publication about a major news story are rare. Also unusual: Opinion columnists typically don’t attempt to break news. In July, more than 280 employees at the Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, protested what they said was the spread of “misinformation” by the paper’s opinion pages. “Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources,” the employees wrote to new publisher Almar Latour. “Many readers already cannot tell the difference between reporting and Opinion. And from those who know of the divide, reporters nonetheless face questions about the Journal’s accuracy and fairness because of errors published in opinion.”
 
Fact-checking claims about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and China
• The granular details of many of the allegations about Hunter Biden’s dealings in China are supported by documentation, but larger conclusions resurrected at the end of the 2020 campaign are unsubstantiated.

• Foreign policy experts say these allegations do not add up to a picture of Joe Biden being corrupt or pursuing policies contrary to the national interest. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden came close to breaking the law, much less any evidence that his father has done so.

• Critics say that the Trump family’s financial entanglements are at least as problematic, if not more so, than the Bidens’.
 
alnav said:
Fact-checking claims about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and China
• The granular details of many of the allegations about Hunter Biden’s dealings in China are supported by documentation, but larger conclusions resurrected at the end of the 2020 campaign are unsubstantiated.

• Foreign policy experts say these allegations do not add up to a picture of Joe Biden being corrupt or pursuing policies contrary to the national interest. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden came close to breaking the law, much less any evidence that his father has done so.

• Critics say that the Trump family’s financial entanglements are at least as problematic, if not more so, than the Bidens’.
Click to expand...

You guys are awesome! Never wavering in your support of the establishment.
 
Iprof said:
Biden stated very clearly he did not accept any funds from China or any foreign sources. Absolutely no evidence has come forward to show otherwise.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't understand how political criminal enterprises run. Everything is setup based on deniability. You'll never see anything direct. It's always shady. As dumb as many politicians are, they aren't stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,182
Messages
1,428,061
Members
61,088
Latest member
SGT LAT
Back
Top