Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,188 Excellent

About moleculo

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/23/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    34.84072° N, 80.80813° W

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Denver Broncos

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sure, this time. But Biden was also the president of the Senate (largely ceremonial, I know), but hypothetically there is no business that falls outside his purveyance. Suppose Biden was working for Locked Martin or Northrop Grumman. Exxon. Haliburton. Amazon. Amtrak. CNN. Trump Org. Can you honestly guarantee that none of these jobs wouldn't eventually have business with the federal gov't?
  2. @jon_mx - the other side of the same coin is that, as the son of a VP, there is literally no job Hunter could have that doesn't possibly fall under his father's purveyance. Are you advocating that immediate family of top level gov't employees should not be employed?
  3. As far as I've seen, it's the right wing media putting her front and center. I had a 4 hour car ride yesterday - I listened to Hannity, Levin, etc. With all that's going on in the world, Hillary's comments were the main story.
  4. I got you, it's all good. One could argue that Shokin shut down the Bruisma because he didn't want to piss off Biden. That's part of the problem with perceived C of I - it's not just what happens, it's what doesn't happen.
  5. Personally, I feel that there was a conflict of interest w/ Hunter & Joe Biden. Hunter shouldn't have taken that job. His partner, Christopher Heinz, dissolved the partnership with Hunter because of it. It ultimately doesn't matter though. First of all, it's a MUCH larger conflict of interest for the president to use the full weight of his office plus congressionally appropriated taxpayer dollars to investigate purely because Biden isxa political rival. @jon_mx correctly states that perception of conflict is as bad as actual conflict - it sure feels like Trump is doing this for political reasons - ergo, conflict of interest. Secondly, if the president was truly concerned about conflicts of interest stemming from children leveraging influence of political parents, he need look no further than his own kids. It strikes me as extremely hypocritical when his own kids are continuing Trump business around the world. Trump is the damn poster child for political family grift. TL/DR: Hunter should have not taken the Burisma job. Trump asking Zelenskyy to investigate is a MUCH larger conflict, as is the entire Trump Org.
  6. I agree - Hunter and Joe Biden had a conflict of interest in Ukraine. But, that's not what this was about. If Trump was really concerned about conflicts of interests, he'd be looking into [insert looooong list of Trump conflicts here]. There are so many conflicts of interest within the Trump administration that it's laughable that Trump is concerned about ethics. If anything, Trump is pissed that someone else was grifting without him. It's like a mob boss getting pissed off that someone held up a gas station. No, this was about two things: 1. Pushing a conspiracy theory (rejected by his own IC), which clears the Russian involvement in 2016. 2. Coercing the Ukranian government into publicly announcing an investigation into the Democratic frontrunner.
  7. I think QPQ is important. Impeachment is a political exercise. It's important for the public to be on board, which means the underlying reason has got to be crystal clear. This is something that Trump understands very well - it's all about the sound bite. you have between 3 and 5 words to get your point across for the public to grasp - that's it. The buck stops here its the economy, stupid read my lips, no new taxes (ok, 6 words) hope and change Make America Great Again Quid Pro Quo is a simple concept that everyone inherently knows is wrong. IMO, it's the key to John Q Public grasping this whole thing. Trump understands this, which is why they are pushing "no QPQ" so strongly.
  8. he absolutely did - he repeated this phrasing during Russia-gate, so he's known it for at least a year.
  9. I seems like this is a perfectly normal conversation where people disagree. I'm not hear to read the same thing over and over again, I want different opinions. Suddenly out of the blue, he calls this a cesspool - why? what's the point? It feels very much like jon_MX is lashing out because reasonable people don't agree with him.
  10. I agree with this. Given that the conflict is probably not illegal and impossible to prove anyways, how exactly do you launch an investigation?
  11. this is a helpful comment. 5 star, would read again.
  12. I believe this. The president has told everyone there is no quid pro quo. He has also told us no collusion, total exoneration, largest inauguration crowd ever, Alabama was under risk of hurricane, his taxes are under audit, etc. Sondland, working for Trump, had no choice but to take Trump at face value. On the other hand, Trump works for us (we, the people), and we (should) have no problem discerning obvious lies.