20 thoughts on “Hunter Biden helped secure funds for US biolab contractor in Ukraine: e-mails

  1. “ B&V had been commissioned in 2010 by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency to build a lab in Odessa, to “enhance the government’s existing surveillance systems to detect, report and respond to bioterrorism attacks, epidemics and potential pandemics,” the company’s website said.”

    So, where is the threat, assuming this is correct?

    There are also pharmaceutical labs in Ukraine that provide essential chemicals to companies around the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “So, where is the threat, assuming this is correct?”

      I think about it this way: An H-bomb isn’t a threat if you call it a defensive weapon. But it remains an H-bomb.

      As this story grows I suspect we will learn more about B&V’s actual project in Odessa. I’ll be interested to learn more about the money flows: From DoD to B&V to Ukraine to the Bidens (one of them VP). The flow sounds like money laundering or like a federal money siphon to me, but we’ll see.


  2. “Category: You can’t make this stuff up.”

    There is a true statement near the beginning of the story. . . “he played a role in helping a California defense contractor analyze killer diseases and bioweapons in Ukraine.”

    Uh, yes he did. If the reporting is accurate.

    He was working with an investment fund that invested in a variety of companies and industries. So what? There are no crimes reported here. There is no corruption. There is nothing but wheeling, dealing, and networking that makes the capitalist world work.

    Your silly speculation about money laundering is 100% groundless. There is nothing in the story to support such a charge. It is just another slander from the America-hating, Putin-supporting, nutty, extremist right fringe.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. RE: “Your silly speculation about money laundering is 100% groundless.”

    You mean B&V didn’t receive money from DoD, activities in Ukraine didn’t receive money from B&V, and the Bidens didin’t receive any money as a result of one or more of the transactions?

    Oh my.


    1. Oh My!

      What a clueless dope you really and truly are!

      You make a serious accusation and you do not have the vaguest clue of what you are talking about. There is no “money laundering” involved in the transactions you just listed. There is DOD procurement. There is a sub-contractor who got paid for services rendered. And MAYBE, as an investor and/or advisor to either the contractor or sub-contractor Hunter Biden got paid something. None of that is “money laundering.”

      It is beyond absurd that a unrelenting Trumpist such as you is so clueless about this major crime which is very likely the only thing that kept Trump in business.


      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “None of that is “money laundering.'”

        I said it was a money flow that I would like to learn more about.

        I know enough about DOD procurement to know that money was spent in Ukraine to support a “science project” that Hunter Biden apparently brokered. That much at least is presented as fact in the story.


        1. You offered that it might be “money laundering.” These are YOUR words. . .
          “The flow sounds like money laundering. . .”

          THAT is a serious accusation. There is nothing in the NYP hit piece that supports or even hints at “money laundering.” My response was to simply point out that this speculation was groundless. Because it was.

          So, challenged on your stupid slander you go into full sarcasm I-am-smarter-than-you mode while citing normal transactions and a POSSIBLE payment to Biden from those funds. Transactions that have NOTHING to do with “money laundering.” Making your ignorance manifest.

          Now you say it was only a money flow you wanted to know more about. You left out that you said that BECAUSE it sounded like “money laundering” to you.

          Familiar pattern with you:
          1. You throw out a baseless slander
          2. Wrapped in obvious ignorance.
          3. When challenged on the slander, double down and imply others lack your knowledge.
          4. While demonstrating that you do not know what the Hell you are talking about.
          5. When the challenge is explained in detail, deny having done it in the first place.
          6. Next you will be saying that I am trying to be a mind reader or that I am confused or that I don’t read carefully.

          And you are someone who says he is ready to admit mistakes. LOL!

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “Please get back to us when you have something useful to talk about.”

            I think it is useful to point out the laughable dopiness of baseless slanders from people who do not have even a tiny clue of what they are talking about.

            You want to post absurd bullshit and NOT be challenged? Are you THAT special?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “You find it useful to slander me?”

            Uh, you have not been slandered. Slander involves things that are false. In this case, I responded to your seriously stupid speculation and your seriously stupid defense of it as was appropriate.

            The essence of “slander” is spreading damaging false information – things like accusing someone of “money laundering” without a drop of evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Then let’s review my actual words. I said, “The flow sounds like money laundering or like a federal money siphon to me, but we’ll see.”

            I can tell you that I faithfully reported what the flow looks like to me.

            Why don’t you try to prove that the accusation you think I made is false? If you can’t, I commited no slander. Which makes you the slanderer.


          4. LOL!

            So now I have to prove a negative.
            I have to prove that these routine transactions were not “money laundering.” And I have to do it to the satisfaction of someone who does not even know what “money laundering” is? I don’t think so.

            Instead I will try to help you understand the essence of “money laundering.” It is right there in the words. It is the process of making “dirty” money “clean.”

            For example, let’s say a Russian gangster has siphoned off ten million dollars from his country’s Air Force maintenance budget. It is “dirty” money. He wants it “clean” so he can invest it in legitimate ways or put it in a legitimate bank. What does he do? Well, he could buy a Manhattan condo from a desperate and unscrupulous real estate developer and pay for it with that “dirty” cash. Later, he could sell the condo and the proceeds would then be “clean” money. The real estate developer taking in “dirty” cash is a money launderer. It is a win-win. The gangster gets his money “cleaned” and the developer sells unsellable condos – which are often never even occupied.

            As an aside, according to Reuters, Trump Florida condos have 63 different Russian owners who spent a total of about $100 million for their units. There are a further 600+ unknown owners who are sheltered behind shell companies. Now THAT’S “money laundering.”

            Now with respect to the transactions you speculate to be Biden laundering money, what is the “dirty” money to be “cleaned?” DOD spends “clean” money. The contractor spends “clean” money. Consultants and investors are paid with “clean” money. What money has gone from “dirty” to “clean?”

            Do you get it now?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “Do you get it now?”

            I get that your commentary is full of baloney. You can’t prove my speculation is false because you can’t prove the money flow that concerns me is all legit. You just assume it is all legit and on the basis of your assumption you falsely accuse me of slander.


          6. Well, Mr. Roberts, I tried. It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about and that is exactly the way you want it to stay. Baseless, even nonsensical, slander is your preferred form of discussion, and nothing is likely to make you change your ways.

            But, in a spirit of good fellowship, let me try to add something to your deficient intellectual toolkit. Here goes. . .

            When you accuse somebody of serious criminal conduct or “speculate” that they may have done so, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they DID. It is not up to others to prove that they DIDN’T. This is pretty elementary but seems to be something you do not yet comprehend.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. The problem for you is that I never accused anybody of anything. That’s why your commentary is bogus.


          8. Typical.

            Now you are saying that publicly speculating that someone committed a crime is not acusing them of that crime. It is, as they say, close enough for government work.

            Here is an idea. Why not man up and admit that you were dead wrong. There was NOTHING in the article you provided that supports a “speculation” of “money laundering?” Also admit – as your scoffing at me makes clear – that your understanding of “money laundering” was kind of fuzzy when you offered that speculation.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. RE: “It is, as they say, close enough for government work.”

            So you admit your commentary is shoddy.


          10. “So you admit your commentary is shoddy”

            Uh, no.

            Once again you again fail to understand straight-forward English.

            I was saying in language that even a dope should be able to comprehend that your denial of having accused Biden of “money laundering” based on the absence of a specific j’accuse is just more of the shucking, jiving, goofy, and counterfactual bullshit that you display on just about every subject just about every day.

            Clear now?

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Russia continues to push the story that their invasion of Ukraine was because of Hunter Biden and – wait for it – George Soros and their Bio labs. You gotta give it to these Russians. They really know what American right-wing media are drooling to hear. People on this forum have breathlessly spread their stories. This thread is another example of that.

    In response to the most recent version of this fable coming from the Russian defense agencies, WAPO has done an in-depth analysis.


    If it is paywalled for you, let me summarize – the Russian story being spread by right-wingers is bullshit in every possible way.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s