It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs
a project Joe Biden made the centerpiece of his post-White House life following the death of his son Beau.
James, Hunter, etc can pitch whatever they want to their clients. If they want to name drop Joe, there's no law that says they can't.
It only becomes a crime once it can be shown that Joe is dictating government policy in a way that is intentionally done to enrichen him and his family.
Where's that policy? Where's those payments?
who benefits from a push to EV's in a time when the infrastructure is not ready, nor the EV's themselves ready for winter in the northland? CHINA? And who was paying Hunter millions? CHINA. That's not proof of anything, but it's a direction to look. And being totally honest, nobody will find the smoking gun proof before Joe dies, so it's pointless, other than to remove Joe from office via election and bring in someone who isn't compromised.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs
I'm failing to see anything illegal in these articles from 16 years ago.
it's important to know that what Joe Biden is being accused of is not a crime, it's just wrong and POTENTIALLY a crime depending on what favors he sold.
But it's great to see that you now acknowledge that Joe was selling influence as we have been talking about for years now.
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs
I'm failing to see anything illegal in these articles from 16 years ago.
it's important to know that what Joe Biden is being accused of is not a crime, it's just wrong and POTENTIALLY a crime depending on what favors he sold.
But it's great to see that you now acknowledge that Joe was selling influence as we have been talking about for years now.
I could Not Believe you when you said......."it's important to know that what Joe Biden is being accused of is not a crime, it's just wrong and POTENTIALLY a crime depending on what favors he sold." ............So I Looked it Up and Low and Behold.............!!!!!!!
" Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States "
www.nationofchange.org...
WTF ?
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs
I'm failing to see anything illegal in these articles from 16 years ago.
it's important to know that what Joe Biden is being accused of is not a crime, it's just wrong and POTENTIALLY a crime depending on what favors he sold.
But it's great to see that you now acknowledge that Joe was selling influence as we have been talking about for years now.
I could Not Believe you when you said......."it's important to know that what Joe Biden is being accused of is not a crime, it's just wrong and POTENTIALLY a crime depending on what favors he sold." ............So I Looked it Up and Low and Behold.............!!!!!!!
" Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States "
www.nationofchange.org...
WTF ?
The Supreme Court said in order to prove influence peddling they couldn't use things a politician was expected to do.They said a politician is expected to act for their constituents such as contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative
government assumes that public officials hear from their constituents and must act appropriately on their concerns.
As I look the Supreme Court got this right through a unanimous decision. Politicians hold parties their constituents are invited and a politicians job is to aid people in their area connect with people to do things like create jobs. This just made it harder for the government to falsely accuse a politician of fraud by claiming actions taken by all politicians would not violate RICO. Sometimes a party is just a party and the government should not be trying to figure out intentions
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
A red tie vs a blue tie.....
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg2
*Yawn*
So, what's the latest nonsense being babbled about on here?
originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Threadbarer
Biden is holding up arms authorised by congress?
originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Threadbarer
Biden is holding up arms authorised by congress?
On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”
If we lose our freedoms it will be because we have destroyed ourselves from within"