More Hunter Biden Bribe taking for Dad.

[Frankfooter]

The NY "fraud charges" were imo a bad stretch of laws atkin to a Law and Order episode. Hence the appeal. If the law stands so hbe it and let's see if the NY justice system goes after all the land speculation moguls who do the same thing.

Meantime though I consider them untested new law introduced as a political weapon. And a jury that had bias.

But you think the charges on HB were not untested and regularly applied to people?

 

[Valcazar]

Banned from lobbying. That's the price to be elected.

All family members out to how far are banned from registering as lobbyists?
Lifetime ban?
Ban only while the family member is active?
How are you seeing that?

But a good deal of it could be mitigated through term limits of 6 as a congressman, 3 as a Senator.

This seems entirely irrelevant to the family member question.
What's the connection you're making here?

Own a company? On the board? That company is no longer eligible for govt contracts while they are in office. It will make companies actively avoid family.

OK, this is while the family member is in office.
But, for instance, this wouldn't apply to the Hunter situation, no?
I don't think Burisma had US government contracts.

Make them strict as shit.

Basically put the onus on the corporations to avoid the connection. Doing so also makes it more difficult to transfer bribes via family members.

Make what "strict as shit"?
Like I said, your rules seem like they would have stopped Hunter Biden from his lobbying work, but wouldn't have kept him off the board of Burisma.

 

[Valcazar]

They are felonies in nature.

The NY "fraud charges" were imo a bad stretch of laws atkin to a Law and Order episode. Hence the appeal. If the law stands so hbe it and let's see if the NY justice system goes after all the land speculation moguls who do the same thing.

Meantime though I consider them untested new law introduced as a political weapon. And a jury that had bias.

The fraud charges aren't felonies.
That's one of the other cases.

(It can be hard keeping track, I know.)

 

[Butler1000]

All family members out to how far are banned from registering as lobbyists?
Lifetime ban?
Ban only while the family member is active?
How are you seeing that?



This seems entirely irrelevant to the family member question.
What's the connection you're making here?



OK, this is while the family member is in office.
But, for instance, this wouldn't apply to the Hunter situation, no?
I don't think Burisma had US government contracts.



Make what "strict as shit"?
Like I said, your rules seem like they would have stopped Hunter Biden from his lobbying work, but wouldn't have kept him off the board of Burisma.

Show me how you would do it first.

 

[Valcazar]

Show me how you would do it first.

I have no idea how to do it.
That's the whole issue.
It's incredibly hard, like I said.

Do you literally ban any family member from ever having a job?
Because outside of that, you always have workarounds.

That's why most of these laws have "appearance of conflict" and "reasonable person" language in them, because it's fucking hard.

Burisma had no government contracts, but obviously the US government can help the company out via foreign policy or general regulation of that industry.
What do you do about "I got an invite to this party with important people so that let me set up a meeting"?

I think the "they can't be a registered lobbyist" is probably enforceable and not overreach. (Even if someone might have to give up a previously existing job while their family member is serving.)

If this shit was simple, people would have fixed it.

 

[Butler1000]

I have no idea how to do it.
That's the whole issue.
It's incredibly hard, like I said.

Do you literally ban any family member from ever having a job?
Because outside of that, you always have workarounds.

That's why most of these laws have "appearance of conflict" and "reasonable person" language in them, because it's fucking hard.

Burisma had no government contracts, but obviously the US government can help the company out via foreign policy or general regulation of that industry.
What do you do about "I got an invite to this party with important people so that let me set up a meeting"?

I think the "they can't be a registered lobbyist" is probably enforceable and not overreach. (Even if someone might have to give up a previously existing job while their family member is serving.)

If this shit was simple, people would have fixed it.

You think the politicians want to fix it? They helped create it.

 

[Valcazar]

You think the politicians want to fix it? They helped create it.

Why would only politicians be working on it?

 

[Butler1000]

Why would only politicians be working on it?

This makes no sense. Please explain how it gets fixed without lawmakers.

 

[Valcazar]

This makes no sense. Please explain how it gets fixed without lawmakers.

When did you start believing that the only people who write laws and propose governmental systems are lawmakers?
That's new.

 

[Butler1000]

When did you start believing that the only people who write laws and propose governmental systems are lawmakers?
That's new.

In other words. Ya got nothing. As usual.

Val, when you actually have an opinion beyond, the status quo is the best we can hope for, let me know, OK.

 

[Valcazar]

In other words. Ya got nothing. As usual.

Val, when you actually have an opinion beyond, the status quo is the best we can hope for, let me know, OK.

It's funny when you just bail completely.

I point out the weaknesses of your proposal, acknowledging parts where it is good.
You panic and go to "how would you do it?" because you think I'm trapping you into showing your whole ass and not just trying to point out that putting together a law that actually stops this all is extremely difficult.
You go immediately to "The status quo is the best we can hope for because everyone is corrupt" and when I point out other people draft laws than just the corrupt lawmakers you immediately say that
I'm the one saying all we can hope for is the status quo.

It's kind of hilarious.
It usually takes you longer, though.

 

[bver_hunter]

The question remains about the nature of the charges.

What about the nature that you are questioning? There are felons that have been proven in court.
Is Trump above the law?

 

[Butler1000]

It's funny when you just bail completely.

I point out the weaknesses of your proposal, acknowledging parts where it is good.
You panic and go to "how would you do it?" because you think I'm trapping you into showing your whole ass and not just trying to point out that putting together a law that actually stops this all is extremely difficult.
You go immediately to "The status quo is the best we can hope for because everyone is corrupt" and when I point out other people draft laws than just the corrupt lawmakers you immediately say that
I'm the one saying all we can hope for is the status quo.

It's kind of hilarious.
It usually takes you longer, though.

Well no. That's not true. I asked you how you would do it, and couldn't come up with an answer. So really that means you haven't thought about it enough to qualify you to critique anyone else. That is your MO. You actually don't want anything to change but pretend you do just to criticize legitimate discourse.
So why bother with someone who can't or won't formulate an opinion. Nothing to be learnt from someone who supports status quo corruption because they can't fathom change is possible..

Or don't want it.

 

[Leimonis]

The NY "fraud charges" …. And a jury that had bias.

What bias? Doesn’t New York love Trump?

 

[Butler1000]

What bias? Doesn’t New York love Trump?

I'm going to assume sarcasm......

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm going to assume sarcasm......

The only fair trial for rump would have a jury of family members, ex rump lawyers, ex rump White House team, rump employees, select MAGA rally fanatics

 

[Anbarandy]

The NY "fraud charges" were imo a bad stretch of laws atkin to a Law and Order episode. Hence the appeal. If the law stands so hbe it and let's see if the NY justice system goes after all the land speculation moguls who do the same thing.

Meantime though I consider them untested new law introduced as a political weapon. And a jury that had bias.

Hmmmm?

Groundbreaking legal analysis!

I never could figure out why you aren't clerking twerking for justices Thomas and Alito.

 

[kherg007]

Just remember Trump's DOJ (SDNY) prosecuted Michael Cohen for this same crime Trump is convicted of and Cohen served time in prison.
Just saying.

 

[Valcazar]

Well no. That's not true. I asked you how you would do it, and couldn't come up with an answer. So really that means you haven't thought about it enough to qualify you to critique anyone else. That is your MO. You actually don't want anything to change but pretend you do just to criticize legitimate discourse.
So why bother with someone who can't or won't formulate an opinion. Nothing to be learnt from someone who supports status quo corruption because they can't fathom change is possible..

Or don't want it.

You're cute.

The problem is the family, obviously.

There are all kinds of proposals to improve the status quo.
You can put in harder laws on lobbying and the revolving door. (I am not totally convinced by the "lifetime ban" some people have proposed, but a cooling off period makes sense.)
We can (and should) expand the definition of lobbying, because there are too many ways around that.
We can say no one connected to politics can sit on a corporate board. (I think most corporate boards are kind of bullshit anyway.)

Those are just a few off the top of my head and people have proposed more.

But that doesn't address the main thing YOU have complained about - Hunter Biden.

You have said repeatedly that paying the family is all just secret ways to bribe the main politician.
I have never seen ANYONE propose something that can fix that, since obviously ANY employment of a family member is a front for money laundering and bribes by your definition.

Unless you are proposing banning family members from working, you will always have someone who fits your criteria for corruption.

Those of us who think about these things more than you realize this.

 

[Butler1000]

You're cute.

The problem is the family, obviously.

There are all kinds of proposals to improve the status quo.
You can put in harder laws on lobbying and the revolving door. (I am not totally convinced by the "lifetime ban" some people have proposed, but a cooling off period makes sense.)
We can (and should) expand the definition of lobbying, because there are too many ways around that.
We can say no one connected to politics can sit on a corporate board. (I think most corporate boards are kind of bullshit anyway.)

Those are just a few off the top of my head and people have proposed more.

But that doesn't address the main thing YOU have complained about - Hunter Biden.

You have said repeatedly that paying the family is all just secret ways to bribe the main politician.
I have never seen ANYONE propose something that can fix that, since obviously ANY employment of a family member is a front for money laundering and bribes by your definition.

Unless you are proposing banning family members from working, you will always have someone who fits your criteria for corruption.

Those of us who think about these things more than you realize this.

So, things I said, now and in the past. We'll aren't you a smart cookie!

And my point stands. Changes won't be made, because the politicians, who do make the laws, and the party leaderships, who do set policy, are happy with the corruption. And will actively work to keep reformers out, or actively recruit them once in.

AOC as a prime recent example of how that works.