Good lord you need work on your reading comprehension, or did you just look at the headline and ignore the very first line of the article?
Hunter Biden was working and being paid as a consultant for MBNA and had no direct ties to any kind of lobbying. That’s just what consulting work is. How much was paid never gets disclosed, especially to the public.
Is there other shetchy shit? Sure, but direct bribery from MBNA isn’t one of them and now we’d have to veer off into a discussion of campaign finance and corporate contributions to politicians in a post-citizens United world.
Be accurate in your criticism or nobody will take you seriously.
I’m shocked that you’d make the typical overly generous assessment of actual bribery to excuse any and all of your team. /s
Do some more research. This is just the tip of the fucking iceberg. Biden has a long track record of quid pro quo besides this event that you clearly are purposely looking the other way on.
I could literally show you video of Biden accepting a bribe and you’d find a way to excuse it.
Yup, you 100% need to work on reading comprehension. I never said nothing sketchy happened, actually I explicitly said other sketchy shit did and does happen, I’m saying the specific example you originally pulled did not support your argument.
The article you pulled, in the literal first sentences said that Hunter Biden was paid as a consultant by MBNA in 2005, 3 years prior to the article and that the consultancy, despite being legally above board, doesn’t look good and happened at the same time a bill favoring credit card companies was passed.
That’s not a direct bribe to Joe Biden in exchange for a favorable bill as you described it.
But instead I’m the shill for Biden because you have done a shit job defending your own point with an article that explicitly contradicts your point in the very first sentence. All I did was read the fucking article and point out it doesn’t say what you think it said.
Again be accurate in your criticism, back it up with anything that doesn’t immediately contradict your points because at this point, I highly doubt you even read a single article you posted in your last reply.
blackbelt352@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Good lord you need work on your reading comprehension, or did you just look at the headline and ignore the very first line of the article?
Hunter Biden was working and being paid as a consultant for MBNA and had no direct ties to any kind of lobbying. That’s just what consulting work is. How much was paid never gets disclosed, especially to the public.
Is there other shetchy shit? Sure, but direct bribery from MBNA isn’t one of them and now we’d have to veer off into a discussion of campaign finance and corporate contributions to politicians in a post-citizens United world.
Be accurate in your criticism or nobody will take you seriously.
demesisx@infosec.pub 4 weeks ago
I’m shocked that you’d make the typical overly generous assessment of actual bribery to excuse any and all of your team. /s
Do some more research. This is just the tip of the fucking iceberg. Biden has a long track record of quid pro quo besides this event that you clearly are purposely looking the other way on.
I could literally show you video of Biden accepting a bribe and you’d find a way to excuse it.
…house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline…
…house.gov/…/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-i…
reason.com/…/theres-plenty-of-evidence-of-corrupt…
propublica.org/…/bidens-cozy-relations-with-bank-…
gazette.com/…/article_ff57a793-140b-5d88-8996-a21…
congress.gov/…/HHRG-116-JU08-20201202-SD006.pdf
politico.com/…/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-bro…
theintercept.com/…/does-joe-biden-have-a-corrupti…
www.npr.org/transcripts/93954519
washingtonexaminer.com/…/the-mbna-tales-when-joe-…
motherjones.com/…/biden-bankruptcy-president/
vox.com/…/hunter-biden-trump-corruption-outsider
blackbelt352@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yup, you 100% need to work on reading comprehension. I never said nothing sketchy happened, actually I explicitly said other sketchy shit did and does happen, I’m saying the specific example you originally pulled did not support your argument.
The article you pulled, in the literal first sentences said that Hunter Biden was paid as a consultant by MBNA in 2005, 3 years prior to the article and that the consultancy, despite being legally above board, doesn’t look good and happened at the same time a bill favoring credit card companies was passed.
That’s not a direct bribe to Joe Biden in exchange for a favorable bill as you described it.
But instead I’m the shill for Biden because you have done a shit job defending your own point with an article that explicitly contradicts your point in the very first sentence. All I did was read the fucking article and point out it doesn’t say what you think it said.
Again be accurate in your criticism, back it up with anything that doesn’t immediately contradict your points because at this point, I highly doubt you even read a single article you posted in your last reply.