From "What Americans Think Of The Biden Impeachment Inquiry/Most aren't convinced President Biden is implicated in his son's wrongdoing" (FiveThirtyEight).
Why would anyone be "convinced" at this point?
The question whether you're convinced insures that the answers will reflect one's political position. I'd be interested in knowing whether people admit they don't know and maintain an openness to persuasion.
I think Biden supporters should be deeply troubled that 10% of Democrats are already convinced Hunter Biden "[f]unneled millions of dollars to his father in a long-running scheme to help Joe Biden profit off of his position."
But here's FiveThirtyEight stressing that "Most aren't convinced."
পোস্টগুলি
৭৩টি মন্তব্য:
"whether people admit they don't know"
I admit I don't know how many millions Joe actually received, directly or indirectly. I do know that Hunter's business model was "the brand," i.e., access to Joe. That business was inherently corrupt.
The real issue is that this is probably a common grift of the D.C. political class- take bribes using relatives as the bagmen. The wife/husband, son, daughter, brother/sisiter gets a comfy, extremely well-paying sinecure at a law firm, business, or NGO.
If that is the case, it definitely looks like it is the case, the wagons will be circled around Biden by both Democrats and Republicans in D.C. since Biden's family surely knows that they aren't the only ones bagging the bribes in D.C. and won't take the fall alone.
Why would Democrats be “convinced”?! It’s not like our media has ANY interest in investigating or covering the investigations of others who understand their job function.
The divide is not between those who are convinced and those who are not it is between those who believe that an investigation is necessary, especially in an era when “reporters” are strangely uninterested in fact finding, and those who believe if they wish away the smoke we will not discover there’s fire.
Republicans are eager to believe it and so latched on to the first facts that came out suggesting broad criminality in the Biden family. As we go along and more facts come out, their position solidifies.
Democrats are reluctant to believe it and have dismissed as much as they can get away with. As more evidence comes out, they have fall back positions and continue to accept as little as they can justify. Their standards of proof are high and getting higher all the time.
To quote Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law."
We know for sure that Hunter Biden sold access to his father. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain that Joe Biden didn't know about it. There is suggestive evidence that Joe Biden personally profited. There is no smoking gun evidence (yet), but this is not a courtroom. People don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to be honest with themselves and others about what is likely to be true. While Joe Biden's level of involvement is open to question, it is simply not a good faith position that he is innocent of all wrongdoing.
"Why would anyone be "convinced" at this point?"
Well, how about because Biden bragged about it on video? Would that be a good reason to be convinced? Or do you think he was already in senile decline, confessing to crimes he had never actually committed? I guess he does often lie about his past actions.
I don't have to "believe" when there are bank records, 22 shell companies to family members, and emails from Hunter, complaining that he has to split his income with his father.
First impressions are lasting impressions. Five Thirty Eight is creating the early framing that allows most people (who aren't following this closely and don't want to do so) to adopt a mindset of "nothing there" or "not proven." This will tend to undercut the credibility of future narratives that might imperil Biden: they will need to land more and more compelling data under hostile fire, in order to get even a foot-hold in the debate.
They're not stupid, they're the best of the best (or the worst of the worst: take your pick).
For most people, the truthiness of the allegation depends entirely on how it will affect the advancement of abortion.
The problem really is, who believes the media when they say Democrats 'aren't convinced'? If you've been paying any attention to politics for the past 30 years, you'll know already that Crazy Uncle Joe Biden is a construct of the media. Nobody is fond of Joe Biden, nobody thinks of him as an endearing avuncular figure, but a lot of Democrats have talked themselves into believing he's within the bounds of 'acceptable' as a public figure, albeit a little uncomfortably close to the margins at times. The only reason he ever made VP was because the Chicago Machine had to be balanced by the East Coast Establishment Machine to get the votes. Another strategy was formulated in 2020, and we all remember what that one looked like: Run out the Republican polling place monitors and paper up the windows - then start counting again.
I think we can all agree their guy did it and our guy didn’t.
The question is will Democrats ever admit they are convinced of Biden’s corruption, because to do so reflects badly on Obama and his administration, or just say Biden should step aside “for the good of the nation” because he’s so old.
The Dems don’t care that the Bidens are criminals. They got their money or laws. Money for the Green New Deal or to the Military-Industrial Complex. That’s why Joe left those weapons in Afghanistan and why he sends billions to Ukraine.
The Dems are immoral, evil and corrupt. No question about it now.
"Well, how about because Biden bragged about it on video? Would that be a good reason to be convinced?"
Comments like this show why those who are Republicans are saying they are convinced. Please try to picture yourself as someone who wants Biden to prevail. I think it's significant that even 10% of Democrats are *convinced* and I'd like to know what percentage are open to considering the evidence.
Jonathan Turley: Five Facts That Compel the Biden Impeachment Inquiry
"First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings.…"
"Second, we know that more than $20 million was paid to the Bidens by foreign sources, including figures in China, Ukraine, Russia and Romania. There is no apparent reason for the multilayers of accounts and companies other than to hide these transfers.…"
"Third, specific demands were made on Hunter, including dealing with the threat of a Ukrainian prosecutor to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter was given a lucrative board position. Five days later, Joe Biden forced the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor, even though State Department and intelligence reports suggested that progress was being made on corruption. …"
"Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. There also are references to deals that included free office space and other perks for Joe Biden and his wife; other emails reference how Joe and Hunter Biden would use the same accounts and credit cards. Beyond those alleged direct benefits, Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family."
"Fifth, there is evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Hunter that could be linked to covering up these payments, from the failure to pay taxes to the failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. …"
I'll just highlight Turley's #2. Apparently, the Bidens have set up some two dozen shell companies that have taken in millions of dollars. What more do you need to know? Joe Biden could clear all this up in a minute by opening those books. But instead, he is setting up a War Room.
All indications at this point are that Joe Biden is guilty as sin. Might I hazard a guess that the Althouses of the world can say "Why would anyone be "convinced" at this point? " because the New York Times refuses to print the facts as we know them. They are only being reported in those outlets that Althouse self-reports she won't read. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
"I think it's significant that even 10% of Democrats are *convinced* and I'd like to know what percentage are open to considering the evidence"
You have all the information you need to answer that question, Althouse. The answer is 10%.
What the committee needs are a detailed record of all of Joe Biden's financial transactions. This is the information that banks and financial firms will need a fully enforced subpoena to obtain. No bank would fight a subpoena from Congress for my financial transaction records, for example, since I am a nobody. They will fight one for Joe and Jill Biden's records out of simple fear.
As a youth, I sometimes heard adults make the statement that in order to be in politics, you had to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I was naive enough to believe that.
Ann Althouse said... I'd like to know what percentage are open to considering the evidence.
I’d like to know what percentage of Democrats care in the slightest and will support removing Biden if it’s proven that he actually is the centre of the Biden crime family. Not just that family members profited off their connection to him, but that he participated, that he was (and knew he was) the “big guy” who got 10%.
Such is my disdain for Democrats that I think it’s less than 50%.
If only Hunter could have gotten straight enough to pick up that laptop.
The laptop damns them.
The Bidens are no more corrupt than any other politician.
As I’ve written before, Hunter was an idiot not to be paid in Bitcoin. Or maybe he was. The Fake News never even asks the question. Like Bitcoin doesn’t exist.
All criminals use Bitcoin. That’s why it was invented!
"I think it's significant that even 10% of Democrats are *convinced* and I'd like to know what percentage are open to considering the evidence"
On an earlier thread, I posted that 90% of Democrats vote that way for one or more of two reasons:
1. They have always voted for the party and they always will,
2. They believe wholeheartedly in the honesty of the mainstream media.
The 10% of Democrats who are convinced that Uncle Joe is a crook is the leftover 10% from the above statement.
Oh, yeah. 170 Suspicious Activity Reports.
"In financial regulation, a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) or Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) is a report made by a financial institution about suspicious or potentially suspicious activity as required under laws designed to counter money laundering, financing of terrorism and other financial crimes.". - Wikipedia.
I mean, come on!
Most Democrats get their information from a combination of MSNBC, NY Times clipped articles, and CNN. So...yeah, their eyes and mind have not seen much in the way of details. Makes it hard to get convinced of anything other than what they are being sold. They aren't inclined to do anymore homework on it than what is fed to them on a platter. And so, we remain a horribly uninformed society. Easily manipulated. Ready to accept a doddering, brain-seized corruptocrat as President.
Fact-checkers revise narrative on Biden’s role in firing Ukraine prosecutor as new evidence emerges
Once declarative in their findings, the latest fact checks have begun to hedge and equivocate in the face of contradictory evidence uncovered by Congress and open-records litigation.
Just the News reported newly uncovered State Department and European Union documents, both of which indicated that Ukraine had made adequate progress in its anti-corruption reforms, including within its Prosecutor General’s Office. “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third [loan] guarantee” and “the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved,” the State Department Interagency Policy Committee and the EU European Commission confirmed, respectively.
Washington DC is an EXPENSIVE place to live..
other than Donald Trump, can Anyone name another elected official that left DC with LESS money than they went there with? One Single Politician (other than Trump), that DIDN'T get rich in DC?
How could anyone not be convinced?
I think if the DOJ hadn't let the statute of limitations pass on 2014-2015 tax crimes, I'd be less willing to support the impeachment inquiry.
But if DOJ, (who's supposed to be independent, remember? LOL) will abet Joe Biden and help cover up his financial trail, well, that's a big deal.
And yes, I am sure other people in DC do this stuff. Burisma donated to Atlantic Council which then hires State Department to give speeches...I'm sure it's the DC way.
Burisma tried to give money to the McCain Institute, but they were convinced it was a bad idea. (It was money to "train" Ukrainian prosecutors...wow Burisma seems fixated on that)
Also, this impeachment inquiry should include looking back to the Ukraine impeachment as a possible source of injustice. Why was Eric Ciaramella allowed to be hidden while Biden whistleblowers are not? Was that impeachment designed to stop further inquiries into Biden Ukraine corruption?
Althouse... open your eyes... read what is known, not what just some outlets say (or not say.) There is ample evidence the Bidens got a hell of a lot of money just where the Biden Administration did things for certain people.
Just facts Althouse... laid right there out in the open. If you can't 'see' that, your eyes are closed.
Blogger Yancey Ward said..."The real issue is that this is probably a common grift of the D.C. political class- take bribes using relatives as the bagmen. The wife/husband, son, daughter, brother/sisiter gets a comfy, extremely well-paying sinecure at a law firm, business, or NGO."
When I was doing my "Conflict of Interest" reports to the UW, related to my research activities (required of all faculty), it was prominent on the filing documents that any and all remuneration to family members must also be reported. Because it is obvious as hell that payments to family is an avenue to hide payments, if it were allowed. Even if these payments went only to Hunter, that is still beyond the pale.
The issue isn't whether the Left is convinced of Biden's guilt.
The issue is they don't CARE about Biden's guilt.
These are the people who think:
1) they should be able to abuse and statutory rape your children in schools.
2) they are justified in burning down your city and property so Black Lives Matter can build a couple more mansions.
3) students at Oberlin can steal, attack, and libel a Bakery that doesn't let them shoplift.
4) a professor can hold a machete to journalists they don't like.
and the well known history of consorting with islamic, domsetic, and government-sponsored terrorists, hide public information from parents, and tax payers, shoot up achools because they cant make up their minds that being a boy or girl gets them the most likes on instagram.
To the democrats and the left, criminality and corruption are bona fides, not liabilities.
"I think if the DOJ hadn't let the statute of limitations pass on 2014-2015 tax crimes, …"
Yeah, how does the DOJ do that if they were on the up and up? They wouldn't.
Yancey Ward said...
The real issue is that this is probably a common grift of the D.C. political class- take bribes using relatives as the bagmen. The wife/husband, son, daughter, brother/sisiter gets a comfy, extremely well-paying sinecure at a law firm, business, or NGO.
Probably?! Don't you remember the PMRC back in the 1980's? Tipper Gore and a bunch of DC wives saying; "Do what we say record industry or we'll have our husbands tax the living shit out of magnetic recording tape!" Ain't no probably about it!
Republicans are eager to believe it and so latched on to the first facts that came out suggesting broad criminality in the Biden family. As we go along and more facts come out, their position solidifies.
Democrats are reluctant to believe it and have dismissed as much as they can get away with. As more evidence comes out, they have fall back positions and continue to accept as little as they can justify.
I think the bigger problem is that both the right and the left have their own sources of news, gossip, culture, etc., and the left is simply not reporting on what has been discovered thus far. It is the only way I can explain commenters posting statements that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing. Well, that or they do not understand the difference between "evidence" and "smoking gun proof." Or, I suppose, that they are lying for purposes of their own.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of the right who are both inclined to believe Joe is corrupt and who see these kinds of reports, they see nothing that Joe has done to demonstrate his innocence - like Joe's explanation of the 20 shell companies, or the denials from Joe and Hunter (and Hunter's business associates) that the complained-of activities did not happen, or the alternative, non-criminal explanation of the numerous suspicious e-mails thus far revealed, or how "Amtrack Joe" accumulated $10 million in personal net worth (up from the $8 million he had when he took office) through legitimate means, or what legitimate services Hunter both offered and actually provided to Burisma (you know, other than access to the WH)...
What's that? Joe actually has done nothing to demonstrate his innocence?
"But here's FiveThirtyEight stressing that "Mostaren't convinced."
Thus justifying the smothering of reportage by the MSM.
I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. The deceitful behavior of the media is reprehensible.
Democrats are "much less convinced" that water is wet.
The problem here is the definition of corrupt, which differs from moment to moment with Democrats depending on who the ox is about to gore, and which Republicans use to define a whole host of activities that extends to include noncriminal behavior of a sleazy sort that benefits a Democrat. Both need to stop screwing up the language and define their behavior, their actions, as legal, or ethical, or contractual, or transactional, or self-serving, or demeaning, or idiotic, or criminal, or malfeasing, or duplicitous, and so on, so we can keep up with what exactly they are discussing.
People who set up 20 different companies, none of which produces anything, are playing some kind of game. Grifting.
I'm confused.
Are Democrats arguing that bribes are ok if they are paid to family members?
Doesn't sound like a good campaign slogan to me.
A public employee his whole life at the end of which he's a multi-millionaire.
Republicans, or rather thinking people, are convinced Biden committed crimes- and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Hunter has. And- we can even name them without using new and novel legal theories that have never been used before against a president or former president. Democrats have never read anything about the crimes. Of course they're skeptical.
Democrats are convinced Trump is corrupt and has committed all kinds of heinous crimes. Judging by comments I see hear and from my few remaining liberal facebook friends- they are completely unable to name any of the crimes, but they know, just know, Trump is guilty. I can name some of the things he's accused of- but they are novel interpretations. Like- unlawful possession of classified documents because he didn't get permission to declassify them- or didn't tell the right people- or something else that indicates that as president, Trump couldn't just willy nilly declassify documents. Which, of course, he can.
The real estate stuff in Manhattan? Disagreement over valuations? A crime decades later? I bought my house in 1997. For $90,000. On 8.5 acres. We had problems getting an appraiser to value it at that much. At that time- building it would cost over $200,000. Replacement cost today according to my insurance company over $450,000. Assessed value? $110,000 according to the tax assessor. Under the laws being used to prosecute Trump in NYC- someone up here in the middle of nowhere NY is guilty of something. Any of you want to turn me - or the assessor - into Letitia James?? As in the Trump case, though, seems there are no injured parties. The bank got paid off, no mortgage exists. No one lost any money... yeah, I fully understand the crimes there- there are none. Novel legal theories never before used...
Merrick Garland knows Joe is guilty
"The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to bring felony gun charges against Hunter Biden protects both him and his father, legal experts argued."
“It’s the one charge that will not lead to President Biden,” Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told the Daily Caller News Foundation, describing the charges as a “cover-up” in a separate tweet. “Tax fraud, wire fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Foreign Agent Registration Act—all those charges could have led to President Biden. But the Biden Justice Department declined to pursue those charges and instead pursued a gun charge that is in serious constitutional doubt.”
I am not convinced J. Biden is guilty here. I would not be surprised to learn he was.
I am convinced that the Mainstream Media is distinctly uninterested in covering this story.
Does plausible or probable cause ensure that Biden Lives Matter (BLM)?
I assume any politician in office for more than two terms is corrupt. Perhaps those 10% think like me.
Blogger Gerda Sprinchorn said..."Are Democrats arguing that bribes are ok if they are paid to family members?"
That is exactly what they are arguing.
Peggy Noonan’s WSJ column yesterday explained why Joe Biden became corrupt—he liked to live large. In Richard Ben Cramer’s book covering the history of the 1988 election he profiled Joe Biden.
Noonan:
“Thirty years after publication, [of Cramer’s book] it presages a great deal of what we observe each day of Mr. Biden, and it is suggestive of the origins of the Hunter Biden problems and allegations.
For one thing, Joe Biden has always been obsessed by real estate and fancy houses, and money was always an issue. On a house he would buy a few years into his first Senate term: ‘The house is gorgeous, an old du Pont mansion in the du Pont neighborhood called Greenville, outside Wilmington. It’s the kind of place a thousand Italian guys died building—hand-carved doorways, a curbing hand-carved grand staircase that Clark Gable could have carried a girl down, a library fit for a Carnegie. . . . And a ballroom—can’t forget the ballroom.’ He bid more than he had, ‘but Biden never let money stand in the way of a deal. He got in the developer’s face and started talking—fast.’ He got the house—he always got the houses—and thereafter scrambled to cover its cost.”
I did a web search and found that Hunter Biden was paid $1,000,000 per year by Burisma. I looked up what US Steel pays the members of their Board and it ranges from ~$265,000 to $365,000 per year. The board of US Steel is comprised of people with demonstrably successful business careers. By comparison, the younger Mr. Biden's resume is embarrassingly thin. It is entirely legitimate to ask what his value was to Burisma.
50% of Dems are convinced. The other 50% are low IQ useful idiot foot soldiers who think Trump forged all the transcripts and bank records or something.
Those who haven't figured it out by now are on the left side of the IQ curve.
There is no supposed to be independent about the DOJ. the DOJ is an executive department headed by the President. Theoretically, Special Councils are independent but not sure I believe in such a thing. Everyone had pain points that can be used as leverage against them.
I don't know if any of those guns are smoking, but they all feel real warm to the touch.
"Most aren't convinced."
Given that most have only heard the defense's case, I'd be a little worried about that if I were Biden or one of his handlers.
I think it's significant that even 10% of Democrats are *convinced* and I'd like to know what percentage are open to considering the evidence.
The exact same percentage as the percentage of Democrats who are convinced Biden will lose in 2024.
Yes multi millions in multiple numbered accounts is typical for everyone. I have a couple numbered accounts myself and if I did the fbi would be knocking on my door with assault weapons.
Blogger Tomcc said..."I did a web search and found that Hunter Biden was paid $1,000,000 per year by Burisma. I looked up what US Steel pays the members of their Board and it ranges from ~$265,000 to $365,000 per year. The board of US Steel is comprised of people with demonstrably successful business careers. By comparison, the younger Mr. Biden's resume is embarrassingly thin. It is entirely legitimate to ask what his value was to Burisma."
Yeah…
There is so much evidence as to what's going on it's ridiculous.
Based on what is now publicly known:
1. Convinced -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- Certainly not yet)!
2. Persuaded -- more probable than not -- Perhaps but, if so, barely.
3. Reasonable Suspicion -- opportunity, motive and means -- Absolutely!
And reasonable suspicion demands a truly independent, through and under oath investigation not a mere denial and claims of "without evidence". Moreover there is persuasive evidence of corruption -- the only question is whether Joe Biden is himself a party or knowing beneficiary rather than only a loving father whose depraved son (without Joe's knowledge, involvement or benefit) sold an appearance of it.
Also keep in mind (as Adam Schiff should again remind us) that impeachment requires not convincing but only persuading. And what tim maguire, Temujin and Tommyesq said.
My understanding is that that New York State politicians have been convicted of bribery when money went to their relatives. Just what is missing here? Does Justice need an audio tape? /sarc
I notice our lefties are conspicuously absent from this thread. That's understandable. They might accidentally read of the evidence. Maintaining ignorance takes focus and a plan.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck--well the odds are that the critter is a duck. There are a lot of indicia of corruption surrounding Biden Family Enterprises. But are or were the Biden Family Enterprises corrupt or just the usual bunch of sleazy grifters that live in or off the swamp? Time will tell.
Why would anyone not be convinced that there needs to be an investigation at this point?
Republicans aren't worried an investigation won't turn up more evidence, only that it will be covered up.
Dems are worried an investigation will turn up more evidence that can't be covered up.
Changing shoes, what did people think of the Trump impeachment tria... announcements?
In retrospect?
In light of the evidence, should Biden or Obama be tried? Iran-ISIS Affair? Taliban, too.
If Biden was seen on video bragging to an audience about extorting a foreign leader to take some action that would be to the benefit of a family member of his, there would be people like AA who would still say that there is no convincing evidence of wrongdoing.
Oh wait. There IS video of Biden bragging about doing that.
Democrats don't care, because they are corrupted, and enjoy the division they are causing.
What Original Mike said...@ 11:49
There is an article at Redstate pointing to a C-span video of Joe and Hunter Biden talking business with potential clients so Joe Biden and the media's assertion that Joe never discussed business with Hunter is a provable lie. Of course, the defense has now changed and the new narrative is that Joe "was never in business" with his son.
People often ask exactly what product Hunter and his partners were selling. It was "Joe" who was the product and apparently that product was very costly and only available to those willing to pay big bucks to the Biden family. All paid through Hunter's corporations. It appears that all those buyers were foreign companies, governments, or individuals. However, further investigation may prove there were domestic purchasers as well.
It doesn’t matter if Joe got any of the money if he knowingly participated in the scheme by his son to sell access to Joe. Payments to a child are the same as payments to the parent if the payments were made with the intent of pleasing the parent and the parent knew about and facilitated the scheme.
Glenn Reynolds commenting on the media's reporting of Biden's corruption: "Intelligent people aren’t their audience."
"Most aren't convinced."
Most people are idiots
Stick said...
"Most aren't convinced."
"Most people are idiots"
80 million of em'.
"Comments like this show why those who are Republicans are saying they are convinced. Please try to picture yourself as someone who wants Biden to prevail. I think it's significant that even 10% of Democrats are *convinced* and I'd like to know what percentage are open to considering the evidence."
Jesus, Althouse. It would be easier to imagine myself as someone who wants to have sex with that Mulvaney creature. What would that make me, a pedophile impersonator?
Republicans are convinced because we've examined at least some of the masses of available evidence. I would have to say that you answered your own question. If it is actually the case that 10% of Democrats are convinced that Hunter funneled payoffs to his father, then the percentage of Democrats open to considering the evidence is 10.
What are people not convinced about? He was clearly running a family influence-peddling business. Is there any question about that? Is there a human being who thinks that Hunter Biden had anything else to sell? Did Joe Biden think any different?
That's the obvious part and I haven't heard anyone arguing. The _closest_ I've seen to dissent is, "But what about Jared Kushner?!"
So if we accept that, what is left exactly? Was Joe Biden explicitly involved, or just quietly aided and abetted his family getting rich peddling his influence? Not much of a choice.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন