Here is what the article really says because OP is a huge partisan faggot with an agenda
>House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) made sure to line up an equal number of lawmakers from each side of the aisle to serve as co-sponsors when they joined forces on a White House ethics bill last month.

>That careful balance soon fell apart, however, after three Democrats backed out of their previous commitments to support the bill — vanishing, Porter said, after the White House reached out to her colleagues.

>That backing slipped away, she said, on the eve of the bill’s introduction as she was boarding a flight back to Washington, D.C.

>“I was excited to come to Washington to introduce my bill. And was proud that I had found three senior Democratic co-sponsors. When I landed, I was really disappointed to learn that those co-sponsors had decided not to support the bill and had had conversations with the White House,” Porter told The Hill.

>The White House declined to comment on the accusation, and two of the would-be sponsors denied being contacted by Biden administration associates.

>But the episode sheds new light on the unraveling of an effort to secure bipartisan backing for a bill that would mark a major legislative achievement for Comer — the Republican leading the charge to investigate the Biden family.

>Lawmakers and other sources who spoke to The Hill said the three Democrats — Reps. Ro Khanna (Calif.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.) and Kweisi Mfume (Md.) — abandoned their plans to sign on to the bill over concerns about both its content and the way it could be used against the Biden family going into the campaign.

>“It’s too partisan a tool to cudgel the president as opposed to a serious effort of bipartisan ethics reform,” Khanna told The Hill when asked about his decision to drop off the bill.

>Khanna said he changed his mind after seeing “the content of it and then seeing some of the statements that I thought would be used.”

>“I don’t think it was bipartisan enough,” he said, adding later, “but I made the decision independently. No one called me.”

>Mfume said he “didn’t get the real sense there was going to be enough bipartisan support on the bill.”

>“I wanted to see a larger bipartisan effort. I was under the belief that there would be, and when there wasn’t, I just said, ‘Let me step off,’” he told The Hill.

>But he added he got “none — absolutely zero” pushback on the bill from the White House or allies.

>Krishnamoorthi declined to comment.

>The ethics legislation nonetheless got a lukewarm reception last month from the White House, which said it was always willing to consider Comer’s “bright ideas.” It otherwise stressed President Biden’s existing disclosures and commitment to ethics.

>The bill from Comer and Porter would impose a series of disclosure requirements on both presidents and vice presidents, including on any foreign income earned either by themselves or their relatives.

>It would also require those top executives, once elected, to share their tax returns and to disclose any conflicts of interest.

>While it would represent a step forward for Oval Office transparency, some elements of the bill appear to be inspired by Comer’s investigation into the Biden family.

>For instance, it would require detailing any loans made to family members and documenting when immediate relatives join the president on Air Force One, including whether the travel was for business purposes. Both situations were raised by Republicans after Biden, while serving as vice president, loaned money to his brother and had his son accompany him on trips.

>Comer and Porter have made the rounds as a political odd couple, doing joint interviews on their legislation and promoting what they hope can be a bipartisan vehicle for imposing greater oversight on the White House.

>Porter said she hoped the tenor of that rollout would help allay the Democratic concerns that the bill is designed to target the Biden family.

>“Mr. Comer and I did extensive publicity about the bill. And [during] all of that publicity … both Mr. Comer and I took great pains to make clear that this is not about any future president, it is about having the right set of rules to restore trust in the executive,” she said.

>“The truth is, it is about restoring trust in government. Full stop.”

>Comer said little when approached by The Hill about the swift loss of Democratic sponsors on the legislation, throwing his hands up as he said, “I’m trying to get a bill passed right now.”

>But he said he had organized potential Republican bill sponsors from among the committee’s subcommittee chairs.

>“I told my Republican members I would get as many co-sponsors as Katie got, because I want this to be truly bipartisan, because if it’s going to become law, it’s going to have to be bipartisan, right? So I said, ‘If you get four, I’ll get four. If you get none, I won’t have any,’” Comer said.

>Comer has described the bill as a “sincere” effort, one that he promised since his very first days taking the reins of the Oversight Committee.

>Democrats do not view Comer as sincere, but rather as Congress’s most prominent champion of the effort to impeach Biden.

>It’s an investigation they’ve lambasted from the beginning and have increasingly mocked as Republicans have failed to find a smoking gun to demonstrate Biden took any official action to benefit his family.

>Comer nonetheless pledged the investigation would lead to legislation to address influence peddling — spawning the proposal he introduced with Porter last month.

>Tensions over the bill bubbled up as soon as it was rolled out.

>Comer and Porter’s plans to debut their bill spurred Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, to introduce his own legislation targeting foreign money the evening before their rollout.

>“When I heard that Chairman Comer was putting out his bill, I thought it would be a good time to put out our proposal,” he told The Wall Street Journal at the time.

>Raskin’s bill takes a different approach to addressing foreign money, bolstering the Emoluments Clause, which requires the president to get permission from Congress before accepting any funding from foreign governments.

>His legislation would add criminal penalties for those who skirt the constitutional requirement, something he said would address former President Trump’s failure to do so while in office.

>Raskin has criticized Porter and Comer’s bill, calling it “weak” and arguing it should apply to candidates as well — noting that Trump never released his own taxes.

>Porter, meanwhile, previously described Raskin’s bill as “punitive.”

>Despite the rocky rollout, some Democrats didn’t foreclose the possibility that they could support Comer and Porter’s bill.

>“The key issue in my mind is that when he was in the White House, Donald Trump crossed a really important line. He collected millions of dollars from foreign governments, and we need to reestablish the wall of separation between American political leaders and foreign government money,” Raskin said.

>“The proposal that Katie Porter worked out with Chairman Comer is a disclosure bill, which is OK, but it doesn’t go remotely far enough because it doesn’t apply to candidates. And if it applied to candidates, that’s something that I could look at in conjunction with the emoluments legislation that we so desperately need.”

>Khanna, who has pushed to ban stock trading for members of Congress, also said he could support the bill “with proper amendments.”

>Porter meanwhile has remained hopeful some colleagues will join her effort as the bill proceeds.

>“Our job in Congress is to pass legislation that improves our government. This legislation does that. It is not to punish or reward friends or enemies. It is to pass legislation that improves the lives of the American people and improves our democracy, and this legislation meets that test. That’s why I’m proud to support it,” Porter said.

>“I think that’s the question people should be asking themselves. Not, ‘Who’s the sponsor?’ or ‘Who wrote it?’ but instead, ‘Is this legislation that would make our democracy stronger?’ And the answer is a clear, unqualified yes.”
>___

nb4 the shills show up and say how it didn't happen and that the 'corruption' is just a Fox News invention by MAGA Republicans and Le Blumph.

>>1304832
The bill is dogshit and Democrats were right to turn it down. James Comer, the man heading up the investigation into Biden, essentially drafted a partisan fishing expedition in the form of an "anti-corruption" bill. Some of the disclosures in this bill don't even really make any sense out of the context of a pointed investigation. It requires presidents or vice-presidents to disclose if they ever lend or give money to a relative and requires them to disclose whenever a family member rides on air force one with them. It asks for information, that if just made public by political opposition without context, is essentially just mudslinging. Republicans are nervous about the presidential election in November and drafted this bill as a lame excuse to get dirt on Biden while pretending they give a shit about corruption. (Notice how they're not interested in opening any investigations into the billions of dollars Kushner made in the middle east after being posted there during the Trump administration). Given how incredibly voracious Republicans have been to validate their baseless "Biden Crime Family" accusations there is absolutely no expectation from the Dems or the White House that Republicans would use the information gained from these disclosures in good faith and not just as more random factoids to throw around for their witch hunt. Based Biden.

>>1304838
I 'member the 'bipartisan' border bill that didn't go through because Republicunts thought it was biased.
This same logic means Republicunts don't really care about the border or immigration.

>0 Republicunt sponsors
Oh nevermind, this isn't even equivalent because no Republicunts decided to support it.
Wonder why they're whining about it dying when they never supported it in the first place.
Oh yeah, because they're hyperpartisan fags angry that they can't use the bill they didn't support to fish for more evidence that doesn't exist to show Biden is allegedly corrupt to distract from their felonious rapey pedophile candidate.

>>1304841
If you read the article it talks about the better Raskin bill
>Raskin’s bill takes a different approach to addressing foreign money, bolstering the Emoluments Clause, which requires the president to get permission from Congress before accepting any funding from foreign governments.

>His legislation would add criminal penalties for those who skirt the constitutional requirement, something he said would address former President Trump’s failure to do so while in office.

>Raskin has criticized Porter and Comer’s bill, calling it “weak” and arguing it should apply to candidates as well — noting that Trump never released his own taxes.

>Porter, meanwhile, previously described Raskin’s bill as “punitive.”

>>1304849
As opposed to the Republican bill which is "Tell me which of your family members you have ever given money to".

>>1304852
Doesn't really matter because Johnson would never bring Raskin's bill to the floor for a vote, but he surely will bring Comer's.

>>1304832
kekeke biden did it so it must be good anything to stop the orange devil right right??

>>1304849
Huh, so it *doesn't* have the clause about executives needing to disclose any foreign money they or their family has received?
Why in the world would democrats not want that in there?
It really activates those almonds, you know, if you're not a DNC shill

>>1304883
delicious projection

>>1304883
Obviously, for evil reasons. Unlike the republicans who did it for moral reasons.

>>1304900
Unironically this.
Why would someone want to keep hidden foreign money given to elected officials, if not to hide corruption?

Granted, The Biden Crime Family would just launder it thru shell corporations so that it is technically domestic funds by the time they receive it

>shift goalposts

>>1304901
did you forget trump paid more taxes in china than the US

>>1304904
Source?

>>1304838
gaslighting and insults is all I see from them nowadays

>>1304846
>article is about Biden

>proceeds to rants about GOP

you're in a cult bro

>>1304934
The DNC shills have been sealioning quite a bit. Even when you give them sources they ignore it

Decided to see how they reacted to someone asking for a source here: >>1304905 and as I pretty much expected I think they made it up or are purposefully confusing personal income tax with corporate tax or something like that

>>1304939
be honest, if joe biden had a chinese bank account you would spam it 24/7. instead you have to lie

>>1304941
Why would Biden want to be paid bribes in Chinese monopoly money?
According to the evidence, the bribes paid to The Biden Crime Family from China were in the form of USD and diamonds

>>1304943
>instead you have to lie
and pretend not acknowledge the fact that trump had a chinese bank account

>>1304941
Oh wait I just googled it. Your alleging that trumps bank account he had in China which he closed in 2018, he was somehow collecting bribes in the future when he became president and hiding them back in time in a 2018 bank account?
Absolutely brilliant! That devil!

>>1304945
>which he closed in 2018
lol. remember when he said he closed it in 2015. why does he have to lie about his chinese bank account, i wonder

>>1304945
>closed in 2018,
*2015

>>1304946
The one thing you shills *really* hate admitting is that trumps business sold products. It made hotels. It rented rooms.

The Biden Crime Family business had none of this. Hunter lobbied for US policy. He sold his father's influence. That was his product, and nothing else.

>>1304948
a man selfish enough to build towers named after himself in places threatening to start wwiii probably shouldn't be president

>>1304950
>Hunter sold US policy to foreigners. He was a lobbyist.
>Well trump named towers after himself!
Expert pivot away from a losing argument, anon.
Does the shill factory teach this technique to you as part of employee training?

>>1304951
you're comparing a fact to something you made up to deflect. we're talking about provable corruption. a president who whores himself out to anyone is corrupt

>>1304951
>>Hunter sold US policy to foreigners. He was a lobbyist.
What is this even supposed to mean?

>>1304956
>What is this even supposed to mean
Maybe when you learn some more uncommon English words you will understand, Chang.

>>1304956
looks like he gave up

>>1304954
>you're comparing a fact to something you made up
Anon, the criminal indictments of hunter Biden refer to him as a lobbyist.
I didn't make that up. It's actual fact. So is the fact that trumps businesses developed hotels and sold products.
Hunter was a lobbyist. His job was influencing US policy. That was his sole service.

These are simple, widely accepted facts.

>>1304959
>the indictments
you do know how the justice system works in america, right

>>1304958
Oops, maybe you'll get a hang of this at some point, or idk maybe your priorities are elsewhere, having to work a shitty part time job shilling to pay for your fentanyl you smoke in your tent behind Starbucks

>>1304960
What in the world are you pivoting to. Hunter was a lobbyist. That's what Rosemont Seneca did. Lobbying. This is widely accepted everywhere except in your stupid shill head

yep, he gave up

>>1304963
too busy disrupting higher priority threads, the think tank he works for demands certain topics not be discussed

>>1305012
I can def see why the DNC shillbots don't want to touch this thread.
Why do Democrats dislike the proposed requirements that elected officials disclose foreign cash received by them or their families?
Should be a no brainier, you know, unless if you are afraid of needing to disclose this sort of stuff

>>1305015
Wrong board
>>>/pol/

>>1305016
Nice canned response!
Post it another 1000 times and maybe someone will actually think twice before posting something negative about the democrat party

>>1305015
Sure we love it. Any common sense person should support transparency in the presidency. Now like Raskin is proposing, make it apply to candidates (Trump) too! Why would anyone object to this? Trump has nothing to hide, right? Only makes sense that if you are running for president this law should apply to you. We shouldn’t vote someone in before we know these things about them, right? The point of this law would be to know who we are voting for, not just to have an attack point on Biden while shielding Trump from this same information search, you wouldn’t be for something so obviously bias would you? You want this law to apply to all wouldn’t you?

>>1305019
>someone
You're the only far right wacko here, Cletus

>>1305021
>Why would anyone object to this?
If it's what someone copy and pasted above it doesn't require disclosure of foreign money.
It does apply to candidates but it requires pretty much only tax returns.
It specifically avoids the question of foreign money

>>1305022
>It's far right to want disclosures of foreign money to politicians.
>You are the only person online who disagrees with me
Kek.
Stay schizo, friendo

>>1305026
It's really funny how your entire false premise was debunked within the first five posts.

>>1305022
So anybody that says anything negative about the Democrat party is far right?
You really need help.
Brainwashed, is the first thing that popped into my mind when I read your post.

>>1305028
>Republicans refuse to back their own bill about forcing presidents to disclose any foreign cash received
>WhY BiDeN bLoCk BiLl?
Its because you're a hyperpartisan shill who isn't even hiding it
Maybe you should either learn to read or fuck off back to your containment board

>>1305027
It's really funny how you misrepresented the truth here, which is that it had bipartisan support until some democrats visited the Whitehouse and then suddenly withdrew their support and offered up a neutered bill with much less transparency, but which also applies to candidates and acted like it was a positive change.

You people are literally rehashing the whole "tax return" talking point where you thought that trump was hiding a bunch of stuff in his tax returns which got completely debunked when they were released.

But yet, you are rabidly against presidents being required to disclose foreign money them or their families received

>>1305026
>>1305028
These posters think James Comer is a normal politician working with the best interest of America at heart. Everyone point and laugh at them.

>>1305039
>Raskin’s bill takes a different approach to addressing foreign money, bolstering the Emoluments Clause, which requires the president to get permission from Congress before accepting any funding from foreign governments.

>His legislation would add criminal penalties for those who skirt the constitutional requirement, something he said would address former President Trump’s failure to do so while in office.

>Raskin has criticized Porter and Comer’s bill, calling it “weak” and arguing it should apply to candidates as well — noting that Trump never released his own taxes.

>>1305041
So it doesn't require disclosures to be made for foreign money accepted in the past or by close family members? And then they rehash the debunked "tax returns" talking point?
Interesting...

>>1305042
>noting that Trump never released his own taxes.

>>1305042
It’s does require disclosure of foreign money “>Raskin’s bill takes a different approach to addressing foreign money, bolstering the Emoluments Clause, which requires the president to get permission from Congress before accepting any funding from foreign governments.”

And what part of the fact that we have never seen Trumps tax returns is“debunked”?

Correcting typo
>>1305053
>It’s does require disclosure of foreign money “>Raskin’s bill takes a different approach to addressing foreign money, bolstering the Emoluments Clause, which requires the president to get permission from Congress before accepting any funding from foreign governments.
It requires disclosure of foreign money, while president.
Which is good, but not as good as also requiring disclosures of foreign money received before office by yourself and your family

>>1305053
>And what part of the fact that we have never seen Trumps tax returns is“debunked”?
Maybe your DNC shill script glosses over this, but they were released by the house in 2023 and debunked any claims of being "on Putin's payroll" or whatever the hell talking point it is you retards were regurgitating.

All it proved was that he has a good tax advisor

>>1305066
nta but you're wrong and they really didn't debunk anything due to lack of info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump

>>1305067
Exactly>>1305066
it is so funny how hard you project your willful ignorance. Calling us “DNC” shills while you regurgitate Trump cult talking points that y would take 5 minutes of honest research to disprove.

I really wish conservatives cared about facts more than their confirmation bias. I say this while divulging this truth… Biden sucks and I hate him. He is a center right capitalist and I wish it was anyone but him representing us. The only possible worse choice is Trump and his deranged followers who believe anything he says. The emperor has no clothes and they will say nothing. That is the only scenario worse than old man Joe.

If Republicans were smart they would have ditched asshole rich man with a silver spoon in his ass and givin me a candidate I could support.

>>1305034
I'm a Democrat you fucking idiot.
I want Bernie to be President.
Biden is a terrible President who should never have been my candidate and Hillary was the only person that would have lost to Trump.
Idiot Biden shills like you have ruined my Democratic Party.
You should be ashamed of yourself for defending Biden. Shame on you.

>>1305040
I'm a Democrat you fool.
I hope the shekels you get defending the undefensible soothe your guilty conscience.

>>1305077
you are not a democrat or an american. you are a bad liar tho

>>1305078
I'm the only true Democrat in this thread.
You are for big Government and big Business which makes you a Fascist.
You should look up the word "Fascist" in a dictionary before spouting your nonsense.
Foolish Nazi.

>>1305079
you're also melting down because your lie was called out

>>1305081
LOL.
Your just projecting now.

>>1305083
and you should improve your english, i've pointed out your poor understanding of contractions multiple times and you still fail to learn

>>1305085
LOL
Grammar NAZI is still a NAZI.
USA,USA,USA.
My colors never run.

>>1305067
>they really didn't debunk anything
So where's these payments from Putin you faggots kept alleging?
Kek your Wikipedia article literally says that he claimed he would release these tax returns after an audit was completed, and that audit never completed.

The rest of the article talks about trump leveraging tax law to his advantage

Why don't you point out to me what nefariousness was in those tax returns? Justify your claim that nothing was debunked and there's illegal stuff in his tax returns.

I'd love to see you faggots try to justify your regurgitated claims of "being on Putin's payroll"

>>1305090
>So where's these payments from Putin you faggots kept alleging?
You utter mongoloid, Putin doesn't pay Trump in Tax Returns. They use a leather briefcase full of 100s that they slide to each other in a 50's diner.

>>1305091
So you have no evidence, no proof, and your claims are at best baseless, and at worst debunked.

Thanks for playing, retard.

>>1305090
>So where's these payments from Putin you faggots kept alleging?
The accusation made in the article was not that Putin paid Trump. The accusation was that Republicans are hammering away at this notion of "transparency" in the White House and Trump refused to release his tax returns like literally every other president has, which is true. You introduced this Putin strawman out of nowhere. There's a lot of things Trump could be hiding in his tax returns other than being on Putin's payroll but this is the ridiculous thing you want to focus on because its the most low effort to engage with.

>>1305095
>The accusation made in the article was not that Putin paid Trump
That definitely has been a common accusation, but since we've now established that it's either baseless or has been debunked let's move on the the issue at hand.

Let's suppose a payment from trump to Putin did occur. Let's also assume you are correct in your previous claim that this payment wouldn't be on a personal tax return.

Why are you supporting the proposal that tax return disclosure be mandatory, instead of the republican proposal that all foreign payments to self or family members be disclosed?

You are arguing in support of the very thing you just claimed is ineffective

>>1305097
>That definitely has been a common accusation
You're referring to the argument of someone that isn't in the room.

>but since we've now established that it's either baseless or has been debunked let's move on the the issue at hand.
You're the one who derailed the entire conversation by bringing it up, anon. The accusation has always been "Republicans claim to care about transparency but have nothing to say about Trump refusing to release his tax returns".

>Let's suppose a payment from trump to Putin did occur. Let's also assume you are correct in your previous claim that this payment wouldn't be on a personal tax return.
Putin has nothing to do with this conversation. I have no clue why you're responding to troll posts and pretending like it has anything to do with article.

>Why are you supporting the proposal that tax return disclosure be mandatory, instead of the republican proposal that all foreign payments to self or family members be disclosed?
I don't think tax returns disclosure should be mandatory. I don't think that having honest presidents who adhere to historical and social bare minimums of honest behavior should be legally compulsory. The only reason we're having this conversation is because Trump is the first president in history to refuse to voluntarily release his tax return and allow the American people transparency of his finances.

>>1305098
>The only reason we're having this conversation is because Trump is the first president in history to refuse to voluntarily release his tax return and allow the American people transparency of his finances
I'm pretty sure this conversation is the result of hunter biden's shady foreign lobbying with burisma. The bill proposed was obviously in response to that, everything that follows was just political whataboutism

But regardless, nice job avoiding another losing argument, that was a skilled pivot anon.

>>1305100
>I'm pretty sure this conversation is the result of hunter biden's shady foreign lobbying with burisma.
Except for the fact that Hunter Biden's lobbying has been investigated several times, including by Republicans, and they found zero evidence of wrongdoing. If this bill is in response to Hunter Biden then this bill is even more worthless and partisan than we first anticipated.

>The bill proposed was obviously in response to that, everything that follows was just political whataboutism
You can say its obvious but its just based on your gut feeling. Additionally, what the bill is based on or what its motivated by is irrelevant to the conversation currently being had. What is relevant is whether or not this bill accomplishes anything constructive going forward.

>But regardless, nice job avoiding another losing argument, that was a skilled pivot anon.
You're right. I apologize for pivoting back to the conversation over and over because I won't let you distract and obfuscate with irrelevant bullshit.

>>1305102
>Except for the fact that Hunter Biden's lobbying has been investigated several times, including by Republicans, and they found zero evidence of wrongdoing
It's still under investigation and so far hunters been charged with several felonies as a result of him hiding money paid to him by Burisma.
The investigation is still ongoing.
But you know this

>>1305102
>You're right
I know

>>1305103
>It's still under investigation
This doesn't refute anything I've said. Hunter Biden has been investigated several times over the years, including by Republicans, and every report reported that they found zero evidence of wrongdoing.

>The investigation is still ongoing.
>But you know this
That's irrelevant to what I said. As of now, through all the investigations, they've found zero evidence of wrongdoing. "Well, another investigation might find evidence in the future maybe!" is a pathetic, nothing of a statement. You're appealing to some hypothetical future because right now you have no evidence of your claims.

>so far hunters been charged with several felonies as a result of him hiding money paid to him by Burisma
His tax charges have nothing to do with Burisma. There's nothing in any of the charging documents or the investigation that relate his tax crimes to Burisma. I'm not sure why you'd make that up when we can all disprove it with a 30 second Google search.

>>1305105
>every report reported that they found zero evidence of wrongdoing
Well know you're just lying.
You realize he's a convicted felon now as a result of some of these investigations?
He's facing additional felonies for the Burisma investigation.
Once the investigations finish there very well may be more felony indictments he's facing. Maybe even Joe.

>>1305105
>There's nothing in any of the charging documents or the investigation that relate his tax crimes to Burisma.
The money he tried to hid was payments from Burisma. It calls this out in the indictments. It describes him as a lobbyist working for Burisma and alleges he tried to hide the payments from taxes.
Even devon archer was sending him emails telling him he needs to pay taxes on the Burisma money. Lent him money to do so as well, but Idk what he ultimately did with it, probably bought crack or something

>>1305107
>Well know you're just lying.
Show me the report where they found evidence Hunter Biden committed any corrupt or illegal acts while on the board of Burisma. I'll wait.

>You realize he's a convicted felon now as a result of some of these investigations?
He was convicted for lying on a federal background check form. This has nothing to do with Burisma. You're pivoting hard.

>He's facing additional felonies for the Burisma investigation.
Post me a link to any felonies he's currently been charged with for corrupt or illegal acts he committed while on the board of Burisma.

>Once the investigations finish there very well may be more felony indictments he's facing. Maybe even Joe.
So, again, you have no evidence of your claim right now so the only argument you have is "Well, maybe I might be right and find some evidence in the future".

>>1305105
>I'm not sure why you'd make that up when we can all disprove it with a 30 second Google search.
Here you go anon, eat crow.
The indictment alleges he hid money paid to him by Burisma, cefc China, and a Romanian oligarch
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/133c349f77f2e668/a30281c7-full.pdf
Your welcome.

>>1305110
So, the only relevance that Burisma has to his tax charges is that, during the period he failed to pay proper taxes, some of his income came from Burisma. Apparently, according to this charging document, he also "hid" money he made from releasing a book. Great job, anon. You really proved the conspiracy true this time.

>>1305111
All Ive proven is that the ongoing investigation has so far turned up multiple felony indictments, and it appears you agree despite being snarky.
This is, as they say, QED.
What has been shown is that which was to be demonstrated

>>1305112
>All Ive proven is that the ongoing investigation has so far turned up multiple felony indictments
Multiple felony indictments that have absolutely nothing to do with Burisma or any corruption or illegal actions taken at Burisma, therefore completely debunking your idea that this bill was drafted in response to Hunter Biden's corruption at Burisma. The corruption you're referring to is non-existent. There's no evidence. Zero indictments. Every investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma has yielded no evidence of wrongdoing.

>What has been shown is that which was to be demonstrated
What has been shown is that you're really, really bad at obfuscation.

>>1305114
>Multiple felony indictments that have absolutely nothing to do with Burisma
Not according to the felony indictments, since burisma is called out on page 3, but think your eyeballs have a tendency to explode when you read negative stuff about The Biden Crime Family

>>1305124
Not him but you better rush your evidence to Comer's committee so he can actually charge Biden with something instead of sitting on his ass like he's been doing for 3 years.

>>1305125
I think I'm ok, hunters already being indicted for this

Nice canned response tho, it's like you people have a script you need to stick to

>>1305124
>Not according to the felony indictments, since burisma is called out on page 3
Burisma is not called out. Burisma is listed as one of several source of income Hunter Biden had during the period stated for his false tax returns. Nothing in the indictment has anything to do with any illegal or corrupt activity at Burisma. He's not being accused of anything specifically having to do with Burisma. All the indictment says is "Here are the years Hunter filed false tax reports and here is a list of his revenue streams". That's it. The rest of the narrative you're implying you completely made up in your head.

>but think your eyeballs have a tendency to explode when you read negative stuff about The Biden Crime Family
Your brain has been turned to mush by conservative propaganda - so much so that you're inventing indictments that don't exist to justify your cognitive bias.

>>1305127
>I think I'm ok, hunters already being indicted for this
Well, he's not. He's being indicted for filing false tax returns and lying on a federal background check form - neither of which has anything to do with the unfounded Republican claims of corruption at Burisma.

>>1305128
>Burisma is not called out. Burisma is listed as one of several source of income Hunter Biden had during the period stated for his false tax returns. Nothing in the indictment has anything to do with any illegal or corrupt activity at Burisma. He's not being accused of anything specifically having to do with Burisma. All the indictment says is "Here are the years Hunter filed false tax reports and here is a list of his revenue streams". That's it. The rest of the narrative you're implying you completely made up in your head.
Well this is one large cope, but my original argument was that hunter was indicted for several felonies related to him hiding payments from Burisma, and you apparently agree, just in a really roundabout way

It's kinda funny consider you are talking about "making stuff up in my head", because apparently you just made up in your head an entire argument that I did not make and argued against it

>>1305128
>the unfounded Republican claims of corruption at Burisma.
Umm anon, Burisma was corrupt, I didn't think I'd find a Burisma denier on /news/, but here you are.

Maybe your not aware but one of the things they were paying hunter to do was get the corruption investigation against Zlochevsky closed. We all know how that turned out, and how biden's team celebrated that "they did it"

>>1305131
>Umm anon, Burisma was corrupt, I didn't think I'd find a Burisma denier on /news/, but here you are.
That's a clever pivot. We were specifically talking about Hunter Biden being indicted or accused of criminal wrongdoing concerning his actions as a board member of Burisma, not whether or not Burisma as an entire company has ever been found to be corrupt. You're widening the scope of the accusations because you made a claim you have no evidence for.

>Maybe your not aware but one of the things they were paying hunter to do was get the corruption investigation against Zlochevsky closed.
There's zero evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden was paid to have an investigation into Zlochevsky closed. Several investigations, including ones performed by Republicans, into Hunter and Joe Biden's actions in Ukraine found zero wrongdoing. The prosecutor that was fired was never investigating Zlochevsky. This was confirmed by both Ukraine and the U.S. state department. Additionally, Biden's team did not fire Viktor Shokin, the U.S. government in conjunction with the E.U. did. Biden was simply sent there to convey the message. It was a condition of the U.S. and the E.U's willingness to fund an anti-corruption program in Ukraine that they take active steps to purge their government of corrupt officials - officials like Viktor Shokin, who had tanked several high profile investigations into Ukrainian businessmen and whose prosecutors were discovered to have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in the form of cash, jewels and gold in their apartments.

>>1305132
>There's zero evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden was paid to have an investigation into Zlochevsky closed.
I'm sure you've seen the email of hunters team celebrating, at least in their own opinions, that they were successful in getting the charges against Zlochevsky dropped?

>>1305133
>that they were successful in getting the charges against Zlochevsky dropped?
Excuse me, the investigation, there were no charges, it was only an investigation and a sanction, and the guy who replaced shokin removed both the same year he got his job

>>1304832

Thanks for posting the entire article, anon but next time, please don't greentext it. It just makes it difficult to read and greentext is supposed to only be used for short quotes.

>>1305079
overplayed your hand

>>1305109
I'm not normally in favor of bullying retards, but I have to say; good post

>>1305124
Good post

>>1305109
>Show me the report where they found evidence Hunter Biden committed any corrupt or illegal acts while on the board of Burisma
He's already posted the felony indictments for hunter laundering the payments from Burisma made to get Shokin fired, something like 3 times.
How about you try reading instead of sealioning, faggot

>>1305147
Not him but you're a retard for believing Comer and Jim Jordan are competent enough to bring felony indictments for anything.

>>1305147
>indictments
this is america anon. there needs to be evidence for a crime for it to be considered a crime

>>1305149
>Denying hunter is a convicted felon
>Denying he's been indicted for additional felonies
>Denying there's evidence of even more felonies that haven't yet been referred to the doj
>Denying that pretty much all of this was because hunter is being investigated by the house oversight committee
Are you a bot? You have to be a bot.

>>1305161
Actually the post was not denying any of those things. It just called Comer and Jordan incompetent. Reading comprehension is hard when you’re foaming at the mouth with rage, huh?

>>1305173
You don't understand, the Biden's are super tricksy.
Joe managed to abuse his authority by doing what he was asked to do in his official capacity by the US Government, supported by most of the EU.
Breaking the law by not breaking it is the most serious of offenses, and one that only Conservicunt retards are able to properly see and levy charges against.
That faggot you're replying to is a modern day Cassandra. You should be more sympathetic.

>>1305147
>He's already posted the felony indictments for hunter laundering the payments from Burisma made to get Shokin fired, something like 3 times.
Those indictments have nothing to do with Burisma or money laundering. The indictments also have nothing to do with Shokin or Shokin's firing. You're making shit up because you have no evidence of your claims.

>>1305161
So, to summarize, you have absolutely zero evidence that Hunter Biden committed any wrongdoing as a board member of Burisma.

>>1305192
>So, to summarize, you have absolutely zero evidence that Hunter Biden committed any wrongdoing as a board member of Burisma.
To be fair, Boe Jiden ensured the man investigating was fired. Perhaps to avoid evidence of wrongdoing.

>>1305197
>To be fair, Boe Jiden ensured the man investigating was fired
This conspiracy has been debunked for years. Shokin was never investigating Burisma. The investigation had been dormant for years and this was confirmed by both the U.S. state department and the Ukrainian prosecutor's office. The only evidence that Shokin was ever investigating Burisma is a statement made by Shokin himself claiming it was the reason he was fired. Additionally, Joe Biden didn't fire Shokin. The U.S. and the E.U. did. It was a requirement of their willingness to fund an anti-corruption program in Ukraine. It clearly makes no sense to give several million dollars in funding to a department headed by a man like Shokin, who had a long and documented history of corruption, tanking investigations into high ranking Ukrainian businessmen and whose associates were caught with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in gold, cash and jewelry. Several members of the Ukrainian parliament and the Ukrainian people themselves protested to have Shokin fired for corruption months before the U.S. and EU even offered them this money for anti-corruption reform.

The evidence that Joe Biden unilaterally had any power to fire Shokin is precisely zero. After years of Republican investigations and inquiries they've found no evidence whatsoever to corroborate this claim.

>>1305197
Good post

>>1305199
>shokin was never investigating Burisma
Odd. Which investigation did Yuriy Lutsenko close which hunter biden's team immediately celebrated saying "we did it!"?

>>1305217
Are you sure that wasn't when he paid off a hooker he owed money?

>>1305217
>Which investigation did Yuriy Lutsenko close which hunter biden's team immediately celebrated saying "we did it!"?
What you've just made is a complete non-sequitor. Viktor Shokin was never investigating Burisma. Lutsenko closing that investigation or Burisma being happy about that doesn't refute that fact that Viktor Shokin was never investigating Burisma.

>>1305243
>Viktor Shokin was never investigating Burisma.
Shokin seized the assets of Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky. A house, some cars and various properties. He was fired one month later.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10691
I don't understand why you people keep pretending like Shokin wasn't involved in investigating Burisma.

>>1305349
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD440.pdf
>Biden, allies pushed out
Ukrainian prosecutor because he
didn't pursue corruption cases

>>1305349
>I don't understand why you people keep pretending like Shokin wasn't involved in investigating Burisma.
Because he wasn't. This was confirmed by both the PGO and the U.S. State Department. Shokin invented this narrative to obfuscate the reason for his firing.

>>1305349
Good post. Well cited.
>>1305353
Bad post. No source. Easily disproven