Quote (mki @ Dec 12 2022 05:15pm)
The article you provided does not back up the claim that "Joe Biden had business dealings with these people." It just simply states that they met and tries to paint the picture that by meeting with these people, that Joe Biden is somehow involved in their business. I don't know if you know this, but just because I meet with somebody who is involved in a business, does not mean that I have magically become part of their internal business team and am participating in the business.
National Review is pretty good at reporting information accurately, but you need to read the article carefully. It simply does not say what you are suggesting that it does.
You're moving the goalposts. The National Review article's limited objective is to contradict the Biden's initial defense in 2019, where he stated categorically that "I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." (
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1175486006348460032). That's obviously not true, he met at length with a host of his son's business partners in a mix of intimate settings, and even went so far as to fly his son to some of said business dealings on the VP's own jet.
Quote
I guess you can't see what's going on here. So obviously during Trump's presidency he was criticized heavily for having his personal family involved in his administration and now that he is no longer president, the right wing media is trying to draw parallels or false equivalence. Even if Joe Biden is personally controlling these people with invisible puppet strings (which there is no evidence of), it would be at worst an ethics issue.
This is lazy whataboutism. This has nothing to do with whether or not Trump was right or wrong to place family members in official and quasi-official roles within his bureaucracy. They're completely different situations and whether one is right or wrong has no effect on the other.
Quote
Wow you couldn't have tried to paint the picture of equivalence any harder if you tried.
Do you have any plans on reading the article or are you just going to keep telling me what you believe instead of discussing what the events that occurred?
I mean obviously you are pretty much 100% triggered here. Maybe you should take my advice, read the article, then say something like: "Well I don't agree with all of those people on every issue."
To quote the article.
Quote
Gilliar was asked if “Hunter and/or Joe or Joe’s campaign [would] try to make it ‘Oh, we were never involved’ … and try to basically make us collateral damage?”
“I don’t see how that would work for them…,” Gilliar responded in the 6:07 p.m. message reviewed by The Post.
The implication is clear, Hunter and Joe were involved, and their former associates are afraid of getting thrown under the bus. Do you read it differently, and why?
Joe Biden was specifically called out in the CEFC deal, and Boblinski was specifically told not to mention that Joe Biden was involved except face to face. The reasoning for that is pretty straightforward, giving a third party confirmation that the Vice-President is involved in shady Chinese business deals would be incredibly damaging.
Quote
Two weeks after the meeting, Gilliar sent Bobulinski an urgent message on the encrypted WhatsApp messaging service on May 20, 2017, warning him not to mention Biden’s involvement in the CEFC deal.
“Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid,” Gilliar told Bobulinksi in the message.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-biden-ex-business-partner-told-dont-mention-joe-in-text/I don't think I'm the one who's upset. Your reasoning here is really sloppy, and the premise of your argument is predicated on the willing suspension of disbelief.