Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Grape Ape on October 07, 2023, 06:43:48 AM
-
The FBI report of the Bobulinski interview was released in a 700 page document dump by the WH Ways and Means recently. There are direct quotes from the report here.
There have been a few on this board who have referred to facts posted this topic as "biased interpretation" of events, and have ignored posts about this in other threads.
There is no denying it now - Biden lied in the debate about the authenticity of the laptop in the debate, he lied about ever discussing business with Hunter, and he lied about ever meeting with business partners. But the folks on this board with TDS will not care, or convince themselves that all politicians lie and that there's no "proof" of any Biden/$ link.
Oh, and for those trying to discredit Bobulinksi - he had all the laptop emails pertaining to him on his cell to verify all this is true.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/06/fbi-knew-all-about-joe-and-hunters-business-dealings-laptop-authenticity-and-did-nothing-files/
It’s clear from the 302 report that the FBI knew at the time that Hunter’s laptop and the Post story about it were “legitimate” and not part of any Russian disinformation plot.
Yet the FBI joined the U.S. intelligence community in pushing that false narrative to Facebook, Twitter and other media who censored the story. The FBI’s suppression campaign ran coast-to-coast, reportedly led by anti-Trump honchos Timothy Thibault in D.C. and Elvis Chan in San Francisco.
In effect, the FBI slapped a warning label on derogatory information on the Bidens that was not only easily verifiable — but actually verified.
The FBI 302 also reveals that, despite his denials ever discussing business with his son, Joe Biden personally spoke with Bobulinski about his son’s Chinese joint venture — known as Sinohawk — on two occasions: May 2, 2017, at 10:30 p.m. at the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel bar; and May, 3, 2017, at a Milken Institute conference in Los Angeles.
The report noted that Joe Biden was to be cut in on the profits: “An additional 10% was to be held by HUNTER BIDEN for the ‘big guy,’ which was a reference to JOSEPH BIDEN.”
The FBI also noted that “BOBULINSKI witnessed a large diamond gemstone given as a gift to HUNTER BIDEN by YE [JIANMING],” one of the Chinese partners in the deal.
Bobulinski told agents he asked Joe Biden’s brother Jimmy, who was also in on the shady Beijing deal: “How are you guys doing this? Aren’t you afraid for Joe’s political campaign?”
Bobulinski said Jimmy Biden flatly answered, “Plausible deniability.” Bobulinski took this to mean that “financial transactions that ultimately benefited JOSEPH BIDEN and his family were brokered through and managed by JOSEPH BIDEN’s family members — such as HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN — to prevent JOSEPH BIDEN’s direct involvement,” according to the FBI report.
“The structure gave JOSEPH BIDEN the ability to plausibly deny his involvement and knowledge of the transactions, while still benefiting indirectly.”
Prime, etc - still think there's nothing here?
-
The leftist libtardia affects their thinking & rationality so severely
they suspend truth / facts / reality & just blindly carry on repeating
their ingrained mantra & agenda.
It truly is a very strange & dangerous cult / brainwashing affliction.
-
Primepedo, Agnosticluvsanal, Lurkerforboys where ya at??????
-
Primepedo, Agnosticluvsanal, Lurkerforboys where ya at??????
The country should be united about fixing this.
-
::) Here is where I am at... I don't give a rip.
-
::) Here is where I am at... I don't give a rip.
You shouldn't you'll be dead soon anyway. :)
-
You shouldn't you'll be dead soon anyway. :)
Whatever.
-
::) Here is where I am at... I don't give a rip.
So basically your position is, as long as Trump didn't get elected, you're fine with Biden's lies, the FBI interfering in the election process, and the possibility our President sold influence to our adversaries for personal gain.
As long as there's no Trump in the WH.
OR....you just can't admit you were wrong.
Or both.
-
So basically your position is, as long as Trump didn't get elected, you're fine with Biden's lies, the FBI interfering in the election process, and the possibility our President sold influence to our adversaries for personal gain.
As long as there's no Trump in the WH.
OR....you just can't admit you were wrong.
Or both.
Well at least you got the part about my being thankful that Trump lost the election.
-
::) Here is where I am at... I don't give a rip.
Yet You do on anything & everything Donald ::)
-
Yet You do on anything & everything Donald ::)
Do I? Whatever you say.
-
Well at least you got the part about my being thankful that Trump lost the election.
So you're only here to discuss things when you feel you have the upper hand, or attack posters in a group you feel are easy pickings.
When faced with undeniable proof of wrongdoing, you "don't give a rip".
Got it.
-
So you're only here to discuss things when you feel you have the upper hand, or attack posters in a group you feel are easy pickings.
When faced with undeniable proof of wrongdoing, you "don't give a rip".
Got it.
Shit bowl cleaner turned wannabe political savant, useless old fuck!
-
So you're only here to discuss things when you feel you have the upper hand, or attack posters in a group you feel are easy pickings.
When faced with undeniable proof of wrongdoing, you "don't give a rip".
Got it.
Yup. You got it. You can sleep easy now.
-
Shit bowl cleaner turned wannabe political savant, useless old fuck!
I've never been outwardly mean to him.
Actually thought he might be better than this, but based on his response to me, I have changed my mind, and will not bother with him anymore.
-
I've never been outwardly mean to him.
Actually thought he might be better than this, but based on his response to me, I have changed my mind, and will not bother with him anymore.
Maybe you are a little too sensitive. Just saying. ;)
Not that the following makes any difference because I suspect you won’t like what I post unless I agree with you.
So, the truth is this; I don't care what Hunter Biden did or did not do. He is a private citizen. When there is enough proof to charge/impeach and convict Daddy Biden of wrongdoing there might be something that merits a discussion.
I do not believe I have ever said one way or the other whether Hunter's laptop was legit, or that he was messed up on drugs, alcohol, and hookers. As I posted in response to Coach... all that stuff is gossip whether true or not. But then, some people really get off on gossiping about other people's shortcomings and misfortunes... maybe it makes them feel less upset about their own. Because we all know that no one is perfect... as in casting the first stone.
-
Primepedo, Agnosticluvsanal, Lurkerforboys where ya at??????
In your head obviously.
Surprised there was room left after all the queer thoughts though.
-
So Joe is either a demented bozo or a pretty damn good mastermind of criminal activities. Which is it?
As I have said before, the laptop story not being suppressed would not have changed the outcome of the election anymore than the information of Trumpy's adultery and paying porn stars would have. It would have swayed little to none of the voters. At the end of the day the people casting those ballots were going to vote for their or vote against the other guy no matter what.
As far as election interference, maybe you could call it that indirectly. But it compares in no way to the direct election interference that the GOP attempted the last go around.
-
So Joe is either a demented bozo or a pretty damn good mastermind of criminal activities. Which is it?
As I have said before, the laptop story not being suppressed would not have changed the outcome of the election anymore than the information of Trumpy's adultery and paying porn stars would have. It would have swayed little to none of the voters. At the end of the day the people casting those ballots were going to vote for their or vote against the other guy no matter what.
As far as election interference, maybe you could call it that indirectly. But it compares in no way to the direct election interference that the GOP attempted the last go around.
This is where we disagree a bit. There were polls conducted, that showed just how many folks didn't know about the laptop story, and how many would've have changed their vote had they. The numbers I saw change the outcome.
Given the small disparity in the 3 swing states, it's not improbable it could have changed the election. Either way, the FBI should most certainly not act in this manner. Was it just the two rogue agents? I don't know, but it's really bad.
As for this:
So Joe is either a demented bozo or a pretty damn good mastermind of criminal activities. Which is it?
It can be both, or just the bozo part. This was in 2018, so that's 5 years ago, and Biden most definitely wasn't in the same mental state. However, he has been in Washington forever, and he know how to operate - meaning, he knows damn well what getting on the phone with Hunter's business partners, regardless of the conversation. But two, the family seems to have helped give him the plausible deniability necessary to fool the sheeple.
And I will say, when all this first came out, I only really thought it was Hunter giving the appearance of influence, rather than Joe getting any benefit. However, now that two big lies of Joe's have been exposed, plus Hunter's own words on the laptop saying he gives half his $ to his Dad (and Bobulisnki confirming the Big Guy) there's little doubt it's as bad as we thought. He should have known better, or just copied Pelosi's stock picks so he didn't need to do this.
-
Maybe you are a little too sensitive. Just saying. ;)
Not that the following makes any difference because I suspect you won’t like what I post unless I agree with you.
So, the truth is this; I don't care what Hunter Biden did or did not do. He is a private citizen. When there is enough proof to charge/impeach and convict Daddy Biden of wrongdoing there might be something that merits a discussion.
I do not believe I have ever said one way or the other whether Hunter's laptop was legit, or that he was messed up on drugs, alcohol, and hookers. As I posted in response to Coach... all that stuff is gossip whether true or not. But then, some people really get off on gossiping about other people's shortcomings and misfortunes... maybe it makes them feel less upset about their own. Because we all know that no one is perfect... as in casting the first stone.
So, we have proof of Joe lying about the laptop's authenticity.
We have proof of his admin procuring the 51 "experts" to put out misinformation after they knew the laptop is real.
We have proof the FBI knew it was real when they contacted big tech to warn of a potential russian disinformation threat.
We have proof of Joe lying saying he never spoke to Hunter's business partners or discussed business with his son.
We have proof Hunter received wire transfers listing Joe's address.
We have proof that Hunter said he gives half his money to his Dad.
The FBI interviewed Bobulinski, and put in their report, that Bobulinski confirmed Joe was The Big Guy.
We have proof from whistleblowers who said the investigation was stalwarted on many occasions internally.
What do you need to think there is wrongdoing here - an actual picture of Hunter handing Joe a big bag with giant "$" on it?
But all the crack and stuff is valid in this case, because it makes this absoltuely surreal nutty shit make sense. The laptop story, in and of itself, sound like a political fairy tale.....but it actually isn't.
I actually wish Trump won - mostly for the reason we'd be done with him by end of next year, instead of the possibility of four more.
-
The FBI report of the Bobulinski interview was released in a 700 page document dump by the WH Ways and Means recently. There are direct quotes from the report here.
There have been a few on this board who have referred to facts posted this topic as "biased interpretation" of events, and have ignored posts about this in other threads.
There is no denying it now - Biden lied in the debate about the authenticity of the laptop in the debate, he lied about ever discussing business with Hunter, and he lied about ever meeting with business partners. But the folks on this board with TDS will not care, or convince themselves that all politicians lie and that there's no "proof" of any Biden/$ link.
Oh, and for those trying to discredit Bobulinksi - he had all the laptop emails pertaining to him on his cell to verify all this is true.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/06/fbi-knew-all-about-joe-and-hunters-business-dealings-laptop-authenticity-and-did-nothing-files/
Prime, etc - still think there's nothing here?
Brother, that's a lot of effort when you know they are going to lie, deflect and shrug off any facts and continue to hide behind the mantra of "at least Trump didn't win"
-
Brother, that's a lot of effort when you know they are going to lie, deflect and shrug off any facts and continue to hide behind the mantra of "at least Trump didn't win"
Pretty much this, again:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBzqx6Ty/Bidendidntsaythat.jpg)
-
Here's what I said...
Stalled or not, let the chips fall where they may. No hurry. What matters is the truth... Take your time, do it right. And I say this about any investigation, trial. Hunter Biden? If he is guilty of violating laws, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. If Joe Biden is guilty of violating laws, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. If Trump is guilty of violating laws, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. I don't personally know any of them.. could care less what happens to them, I am interested in truth, justice and the American way.. at least the American way I grew up with. I'm American first, independent second.
-
Here's what I said...
You did say that and I remembered it.
What are your thoughts based on the factual evidence above?
-
You did say that and I remembered it.
What are your thoughts based on the factual evidence above?
I'm open to hearing what both sides have to say. The Democrats are saying the Republicans cherry picked what they wanted to release. The Democrats are saying that the recent testimony by the republicans witnesses refuted much of the allegations the Republicans had in regards to this issue.
I am convinced Hunter Biden used his Fathers status to make money.
I'm convinced entities paid money to Hunter Biden or his company in the hopes of getting positive results from Joe Biden on policies.
I'm convinced Joe Biden downplayed his interactions with his sons business associates. While he may have never discussed business with them, it was poor judgement and a lie early on to use words like "no" and "never". "I never talked to anyone in Burisma" may have meant, I never discussed issues with them" but when evidence comes to light you did in fact have conversations, or meet them at a party, then it becomes a lie and looks like you're hiding something. It's not the first time this has happened to a government official who claimed they never met someone and then pictures appear showing them together at a party or function.
I'm willing to wait and see if the Republicans or a Special prosecutor is able to make direct connections to Biden and violated laws. If that happens then impeach him, remove him and send him to jail.
-
I'm open to hearing what both sides have to say. The Democrats are saying the Republicans cherry picked what they wanted to release. The Democrats are saying that the recent testimony by the republicans witnesses refuted much of the allegations the Republicans had in regards to this issue.
I am convinced Hunter Biden used his Fathers status to make money.
I'm convinced entities paid money to Hunter Biden or his company in the hopes of getting positive results from Joe Biden on policies.
I'm convinced Joe Biden downplayed his interactions with his sons business associates. While he may have never discussed business with them, it was poor judgement and a lie early on to use words like "no" and "never". "I never talked to anyone in Burisma" may have meant, I never discussed issues with them" but when evidence comes to light you did in fact have conversations, or meet them at a party, then it becomes a lie and looks like you're hiding something. It's not the first time this has happened to a government official who claimed they never met someone and then pictures appear showing them together at a party or function.
I'm willing to wait and see if the Republicans or a Special prosecutor is able to make direct connections to Biden and violate laws. If that happens then impeach him, remove him and send him to jail.
Very clear & well stated.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Can't fault you at all with that reply.
That's more like the posts from the person I Know .
-
I'm open to hearing what both sides have to say. The Democrats are saying the Republicans cherry picked what they wanted to release. The Democrats are saying that the recent testimony by the republicans witnesses refuted much of the allegations the Republicans had in regards to this issue.
I am convinced Hunter Biden used his Fathers status to make money.
I'm convinced entities paid money to Hunter Biden or his company in the hopes of getting positive results from Joe Biden on policies.
I'm convinced Joe Biden downplayed his interactions with his sons business associates. While he may have never discussed business with them, it was poor judgement and a lie early on to use words like "no" and "never". "I never talked to anyone in Burisma" may have meant, I never discussed issues with them" but when evidence comes to light you did in fact have conversations, or meet them at a party, then it becomes a lie and looks like you're hiding something. It's not the first time this has happened to a government official who claimed they never met someone and then pictures appear showing them together at a party or function.
I'm willing to wait and see if the Republicans or a Special prosecutor is able to make direct connections to Biden and violate laws. If that happens then impeach him, remove him and send him to jail.
Very fair and reasonable.
I too thought similarly, but now that pretty much everything on the laptop has been proven true, I can't get past Bobulinski's interview and Hunter's own words of saying he gives half his money to his father.
It would actually be silly to think THOSE things were the falsehoods, but everything else wasn't.
On the interview that the Republicans did, it probably did show he didn't say anything direct on the TWENTY or so phone calls. But there were TWENTY or so phone calls.
It will really come down to if they find a hard connection to the $, but his family getting all that cash doesn't really help.
But the biggest problem here is the partisan press core - an honest media would be all over this, instead of us relying on Peter Doocy to ask the real questions.
-
So, we have proof of Joe lying about the laptop's authenticity.
We have proof of his admin procuring the 51 "experts" to put out misinformation after they knew the laptop is real.
We have proof the FBI knew it was real when they contacted big tech to warn of a potential russian disinformation threat.
We have proof of Joe lying saying he never spoke to Hunter's business partners or discussed business with his son.
We have proof Hunter received wire transfers listing Joe's address.
We have proof that Hunter said he gives half his money to his Dad.
The FBI interviewed Bobulinski, and put in their report, that Bobulinski confirmed Joe was The Big Guy.
We have proof from whistleblowers who said the investigation was stalwarted on many occasions internally.
What do you need to think there is wrongdoing here - an actual picture of Hunter handing Joe a big bag with giant "$" on it?
But all the crack and stuff is valid in this case, because it makes this absoltuely surreal nutty shit make sense. The laptop story, in and of itself, sound like a political fairy tale.....but it actually isn't.
I actually wish Trump won - mostly for the reason we'd be done with him by end of next year, instead of the possibility of four more.
-Keeping this short. This is not to be a smart ass but because there is no point in us continuing to argue whether "we have proof" or we do not. Obviously, you believe we do. Ultimately time will tell if that proof holds up when tested. It makes little difference what either you or I think because it changes nothing. Getbig is not lacking in opinions from the most vocal which are almost exclusively conservative if not far right including those rife with conspiracies.
It also occurred to me that had Trump won the election and served another four years, we would be done with him. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that would happen. It seems to me that Trump has little respect for our Constitution except by his interpretation and when it suits him. Had he served a second term, he might have lost a significant amount of support that we could have been finished with him. On the other hand, it seems he can do and say whatever he wants and his base either ignores it or excuses him. Who is to say he would not have found a way to stay in office indefinitely or at least to give succession to someone of his choosing... for example, Donald Trump Jr, son-in-law Jerrod or his daughter Ivanka?
-
-Keeping this short. This is not to be a smart ass but because there is no point in us continuing to argue whether "we have proof" or we do not. Obviously, you believe we do. Ultimately time will tell if that proof holds up when tested. It makes little difference what either you or I think because it changes nothing. Getbig is not lacking in opinions from the most vocal which are almost exclusively conservative if not far right including those rife with conspiracies.
It also occurred to me that had Trump won the election and served another four years, we would be done with him. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that would happen. It seems to me that Trump has little respect for our Constitution except by his interpretation and when it suits him. Had he served a second term, he might have lost a significant amount of support that we could have been finished with him. On the other hand, it seems he can do and say whatever he wants and his base either ignores it or excuses him. Who is to say he would not have found a way to stay in office indefinitely or at least to give succession to someone of his choosing... for example, Donald Trump Jr, son-in-law Jerrod or his daughter Ivanka?
We really can't argue whether we have the proof or not, because it's indisputable - that stuff is directly from the White House release, FBI testimony, and Congressional whistleblower interviews.
But LOL, I never feared Trump figuring out a way to stay in office "indefinitely" or appointing heirs. One of the reasons his base loves him so much, is that they were largely doing better financially when he was in office. If that didn't continue, they'd tire of him. Plus it's impossible.
-
We really can't argue whether we have the proof or not, because it's indisputable - that stuff is directly from the White House release, FBI testimony, and Congressional whistleblower interviews.
But LOL, I never feared Trump figuring out a way to stay in office "indefinitely" or appointing heirs. One of the reasons his base loves him so much, is that they were largely doing better financially when he was in office. If that didn't continue, they'd tire of him. Plus it's impossible.
Nothing is impossible, everything is possible. I agree though that inflation would have happened even had Trump won the election and served another term.
-
“There is no evidence” - Agnostic, Lurker and Prime
-
“There is no evidence” - Agnostic, Lurker and Prime
If there is so much evidence, indict them. Simple.
-
Nothing is impossible, everything is possible. I agree though that inflation would have happened even had Trump won the election and served another term.
A Few Impossible things.
A Human cannot Fly by its on effort
Men cannot become women Biologically
Men cannot give birth
Women cannot become men Biologically
Humans can't breathe in space or a Vacuum
Humans cannot swim to the bottom of the oceans
Blacks & MudSlimes cannot be integrated in large groups with other people
Pedo Joe cannot stop lying & wandering off
HTH
😂🤣😂🤣😂
-
Very fair and reasonable.
I too thought similarly, but now that pretty much everything on the laptop has been proven true, I can't get past Bobulinski's interview and Hunter's own words of saying he gives half his money to his father.
It would actually be silly to think THOSE things were the falsehoods, but everything else wasn't.
On the interview that the Republicans did, it probably did show he didn't say anything direct on the TWENTY or so phone calls. But there were TWENTY or so phone calls.
It will really come down to if they find a hard connection to the $, but his family getting all that cash doesn't really help.
But the biggest problem here is the partisan press core - an honest media would be all over this, instead of us relying on Peter Doocy to ask the real questions.
I don't disagree with any of that other than to say I don't spend as much time as I used to going over political news. I hope I can continue to say that going forward. So I may not be as informed as you are on the intricacies of this scandal. I can promise that before I vote, I will weigh the pros and cons of each candidate. I will spend some time looking into it. In a perfect world, the choices wouldn't be one POS or another POS and deciding which POS will do the least damage. Is it even possible in our current state of the Union to put forth 2 good choices?
-
I don't disagree with any of that other than to say I don't spend as much time as I used to going over political news. I hope I can continue to say that going forward. So I may not be as informed as you are on the intricacies of this scandal. I can promise that before I vote, I will weigh the pros and cons of each candidate. I will spend some time looking into it. In a perfect world, the choices wouldn't be one POS or another POS and deciding which POS will do the least damage. Is it even possible in our current state of the Union to put forth 2 good choices?
The two choices we have right now are pathetic. Maybe RFK Jr messes some stuff up.
-
If there is so much evidence, indict them. Simple.
Because you think we have an unbiased AG, right?
-
Because you think we have an unbiased AG, right?
Well sir, when Bill Barr was the Ag, you disagreed with his conclusion on the election... is there an AG that has ever lived, that you felt was unbiased?
-
Well sir, when Bill Barr was the Ag, you disagreed with his conclusion on the election... is there an AG that has ever lived, that you felt was unbiased?
We can get to that later. Answer the question
-
We can get to that later. Answer the question
Well Geraldo Rivera, lay out your question...
-
Well Geraldo Rivera, lay out your question...
I already did, Sherlock.
-
::) Here is where I am at... I don't give a rip.
Yeah we know. You suffer from severe TDS and are in a cult.
-
“There is no evidence” - Agnostic, Lurker and Prime
"It's been debunked" - Qoach
-
We can get to that later. Answer the question
He did answer it you dumbass. It just didn't fit your retarded narrative or fevered hopes that you grasp each morning you wake up.
-
The FBI report of the Bobulinski interview was released in a 700 page document dump by the WH Ways and Means recently. There are direct quotes from the report here.
There have been a few on this board who have referred to facts posted this topic as "biased interpretation" of events, and have ignored posts about this in other threads.
There is no denying it now - Biden lied in the debate about the authenticity of the laptop in the debate, he lied about ever discussing business with Hunter, and he lied about ever meeting with business partners. But the folks on this board with TDS will not care, or convince themselves that all politicians lie and that there's no "proof" of any Biden/$ link.
Oh, and for those trying to discredit Bobulinksi - he had all the laptop emails pertaining to him on his cell to verify all this is true.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/06/fbi-knew-all-about-joe-and-hunters-business-dealings-laptop-authenticity-and-did-nothing-files/
Prime, etc - still think there's nothing here?
Doesn't matter to people with TDS. I heard a guy here locally on a show repeat the "no evidence" lie. They can continue to lie, because the facts don't matter to people who cannot get past personal dislike of Trump. So long as we have Biden that means we don't have Trump, it's all good. Doesn't matter how we get rid of Trump or what corruption Biden is involved in.
-
The two choices we have right now are pathetic. Maybe RFK Jr messes some stuff up.
Term limits and age limits would help tremendously here.
-
Term limits and age limits would help tremendously here.
Yes, and while I think Gaetz is a goofball, he wants term limits and single item bills - both are excellent ideas.
-
Yes, and while I think Gaetz is a goofball, he wants term limits and single item bills - both are excellent ideas.
I concur. Term AND age limits are necessary and single item bills are indeed an excellent idea, however, the majority of Congress would most likely be against it. How else can they pass outlandish legislation, earmarks and pork barrel projects?
-
I concur. Term AND age limits are necessary and single item bills are indeed an excellent idea, however, the majority of Congress would most likely be against it. How else can they pass outlandish legislation, earmarks and pork barrel projects?
How would that even transpire? We all can agree Congress has their own best interests at heart. While a handful have indicated they want it, not much is being done about it. Outside of congress it would take 30+ states calling for a term limit convention for it to have a chance. Frankly, we as a nation, just aren't that organized or involved and they know it.
-
The FBI report of the Bobulinski interview was released in a 700 page document dump by the WH Ways and Means recently. There are direct quotes from the report here.
There have been a few on this board who have referred to facts posted this topic as "biased interpretation" of events, and have ignored posts about this in other threads.
There is no denying it now - Biden lied in the debate about the authenticity of the laptop in the debate, he lied about ever discussing business with Hunter, and he lied about ever meeting with business partners. But the folks on this board with TDS will not care, or convince themselves that all politicians lie and that there's no "proof" of any Biden/$ link.
Oh, and for those trying to discredit Bobulinksi - he had all the laptop emails pertaining to him on his cell to verify all this is true.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/06/fbi-knew-all-about-joe-and-hunters-business-dealings-laptop-authenticity-and-did-nothing-files/
Prime, etc - still think there's nothing here?
Does this bring it closer to indictments/impeachment for Joe Biden?
-
Does this bring it closer to indictments/impeachment for Joe Biden?
I don't know.
Bobulinski testified awhile ago.
If they were able to keep Joe at a distance enough to continue the charade of plausible deniability, it may never happen.
If the R's could untite like the left did against Trump, they have the numbers to get it through the House, but those R's in swing states will probably waiver.
-
Does this bring it closer to indictments/impeachment for Joe Biden?
No. Bobulinski was interviewed by Tucker Carlson in 2020, before the November election. I posted the interview. Crickets both here and in the MSM. They are going to protect Biden until there is a video and audio of him accepting bags of cash from Hunter Biden with Russian and Chinese symbols on the bags.
-
No. Bobulinski was interviewed by Tucker Carlson in 2020, before the November election. I posted the interview. Crickets both here and in the MSM. They are going to protect Biden until there is a video and audio of him accepting bags of cash from Hunter Biden with Russian and Chinese symbols on the bags.
It's kind of amazing where you have a person interviewed by the FBI who corroborated all the emails and messages, flat out told them Joe was the Big Guy, and yet nothing is happening.
Bobulinksi has not been discredited, called a liar, canceled, etc....nothing.
Yet the press, and most people do not give a shit.
-
It's kind of amazing where you have a person interviewed by the FBI who corroborated all the emails and messages, flat out told them Joe was the Big Guy, and yet nothing is happening.
Bobulinksi has not been discredited, called a liar, canceled, etc....nothing.
Yet the press, and most people do not give a shit.
Ok, I am likely being completely naive here, but can't a federal prosecutor or outside group force a formal investigation? Or is there much more to this that's preventing this from happening? I would like to think that this doesn't rest on one person's bias not to go forward with an investigation.
-
Ok, I am likely being completely naive here, but can't a federal prosecutor or outside group force a formal investigation? Or is there much more to this that's preventing this from happening? I would like to think that this doesn't rest on one person's bias not to go forward with an investigation.
If you don't see the political involvement and influence here, then yes you are being naive. Democrats protect their own. They also use the power of government to attack their political enemies.
-
Biden Signals He’ll Link Israel Aid to Ukraine Aid
Front Page Magazine ^ | October 11, 2023 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on 10/11/2023, 12:27:55
Exploiting Israel to score a political victory.
Biden’s speech on the brutal Hamas atrocities was a good speech, not in that he delivered it well or especially convincingly (let’s not even rehash the invented Golda Meir story) but it appeared to have been written by someone who cared enough to inject it with moral outrage and certainty. It would have been a better speech for someone else.
But rhetoric is relatively cheap in politics. More significant than the moral outrage are the actual policy statements. As many noted, there’s no mention of Iran. That’s not surprising as the administration’s position is not to mention Iran.
Here however is a policy moment that cuts against the thrust of the speech. Policy, unlike rhetoric, is all about specifics.
“My administration has consulted closely with Congress throughout this crisis. And when Congress returns, we’re going to ask them to take urgent action to fund the national security requirements of our critical partners.”
See anything odd here? Partners. Plural.
What partners? This speech is about supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas. Who are these other partners?
This one isn’t hard to guess. Biden ran into problems getting aid to Ukraine approved in the House. There was talk that he wanted to link aid to Israel to aid to Ukraine. Take that little added “s” as a strong signifier that it’s going to happen.
So what that really means is pressuring pro-Israel people to lobby House members to approve an aid package for Ukraine or military aid to Israel gets delayed at a crucial juncture. Which means Biden is using Israel to set a trap for House Republicans. So despite his assertion that “this is not about party or politics” assume that it is.
That’s a lot to hang on a single ‘s’, right? Biden misspeaks all the time.
Maybe, but we were warned that this was coming.
The White House is considering a move to attach Ukraine funding to a request for urgent aid to Israel, according to several people familiar with the deliberations, in the hopes that such a pairing would increase the chance that Congress would approve aid to Kyiv despite growing opposition from House Republicans.
No final decisions have been made on whether to link the requests, said two senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. One of the officials said such a move could make sense because it “jams the far right,” which is firmly opposed to more Ukraine aid but strongly supportive of aid to Israel.
That extra ‘s’ suggests that Biden has moved closer to a final decision. And really why not? Much like the government shutdowns, it puts the onus on House Republicans. If the package succeeds, Biden gets a win, if it fails, he can use it to attack Republicans. Israel gets exploited as bait for this trap by a guy who pretends to care, but actually doesn’t.
Ukraine – Israel aid linkage means that Israel facing the most significant war in a generation gets taken hostage to secure a win for Biden and Ukraine.
-
It's kind of amazing where you have a person interviewed by the FBI who corroborated all the emails and messages, flat out told them Joe was the Big Guy, and yet nothing is happening.
Bobulinksi has not been discredited, called a liar, canceled, etc....nothing.
Yet the press, and most people do not give a shit.
Bobulinski is a decorated Navy vet. They cannot touch him. So they just ignore him. This is the kind of thing that makes me believe there will be no consequences for Joe Biden's massive influence peddling scheme.
-
Bobulinski is a decorated Navy vet. They cannot touch him. So they just ignore him. This is the kind of thing that makes me believe there will be no consequences for Joe Biden's massive influence peddling scheme.
Democrat cult members don't care
-
Ok, I am likely being completely naive here, but can't a federal prosecutor or outside group force a formal investigation? Or is there much more to this that's preventing this from happening? I would like to think that this doesn't rest on one person's bias not to go forward with an investigation.
I was under the impression that an investigation was still ongoing, once a special counsel was granted.
Jim Jordan likely won't let this rest.
-
I was under the impression that an investigation was still ongoing, once a special counsel was granted.
Jim Jordan likely won't let this rest.
Good.
-
Because you think we have an unbiased AG, right?
That is right, we have an unbiased AG. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-look-at-merrick-garlands-background
No matter what happens with which you do not agree, you will always find a way to rationalize your thinking.
-
Yes, and while I think Gaetz is a goofball, he wants term limits and single item bills - both are excellent ideas.
Should Gaetz stay in office past late middle age, say another 19 - 20 years, do you think he will still want term limits?
-
How would that even transpire? We all can agree Congress has their own best interests at heart. While a handful have indicated they want it, not much is being done about it. Outside of congress it would take 30+ states calling for a term limit convention for it to have a chance. Frankly, we as a nation, just aren't that organized or involved and they know it.
Age discrimination is a civil rights violation. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) makes age discrimination of people past 40 against federal law. This means it would be nearly impossible for the legislature to discriminate based on age, because to do so, they you must change the law which would likely also require a Supreme Court ruling in favor of changing it.
-
Democrat cult members don't care
I don't see Trumpturd cult members caring very much about election interference either.
-
I don't see Trumpturd cult members caring very much about election interference either.
Except there was none as per the special counsel. There was election interference w the FBI and CIA in both 2016 and 2020 as proven over and over again.
-
Except there was none as per the special counsel. There was election interference w the FBI and CIA in both 2016 and 2020 as proven over and over again.
Oh really?
The bogus lawsuits trying to overturn the election? What do you call those?
The "perfect" phone call? What do you call that?
The fake electors plot? What do you call that?
Asking Pence to not certify the votes? What do you call that?
The outright lies despite his own party and family telling him he lost? What do you call that?
It's been proven over and over again. You just go into crickets mode when it is brought up.
-
Should Gaetz stay in office past late middle age, say another 19 - 20 years, do you think he will still want term limits?
He wants a bill that would not enable him to do that.
He's not doing this after he's been in office a long time, he's doing it before that, so that feels genuine.
-
He wants a bill that would not enable him to do that.
He's not doing this after he's been in office a long time, he's doing it before that, so that feels genuine.
It is interesting that the Matt Gaetz bill is written with a 7 year window before it takes effect, should that happen. It also requires a 2/3 vote of each House to ratify it. "...proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification."
https://gaetz.house.gov/hj-resolution-6-term-limits-members-congress
-
Age discrimination is a civil rights violation. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) makes age discrimination of people past 40 against federal law. This means it would be nearly impossible for the legislature to discriminate based on age, because to do so, they you must change the law which would likely also require a Supreme Court ruling in favor of changing it.
That's a labor law but you can tell that to the people under 35 who can't be President, under 30 who can't be Senators and under 25 who can't be Representatives. If there are lower age limits there should be upper age limits. Fuck those senile dinosaurs who would rather die than retire and give up their seat to a younger and more able person. Most Americans would likely support maximum age limits.
-
That's a labor law but you can tell that to the people under 35 who can't be President, under 30 who can't be Senators and under 25 who can't be Representatives. If there are lower age limits there should be upper age limits. Fuck those senile dinosaurs who would rather die than retire and give up their seat to a younger and more able person. Most Americans would likely support maximum age limits.
I don't agree with imposing age limits on representatives. But I do agree with imposing some sort of regular comprehension/cognitive tests for them if they are over a certain age.
-
I don't agree with imposing age limits on representatives. But I do agree with imposing some sort of regular comprehension/cognitive tests for them if they are over a certain age.
Yes, this makes sense.
-
That's a labor law but you can tell that to the people under 35 who can't be President, under 30 who can't be Senators and under 25 who can't be Representatives. If there are lower age limits there should be upper age limits. Fuck those senile dinosaurs who would rather die than retire and give up their seat to a younger and more able person. Most Americans would likely support maximum age limits.
Interestingly the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not cover employment discrimination. That is a separate law ADEA passed in 1967. The ADEA act does not apply to elected officials.
Ultimately, the voter is responsible to geriatric politicians continuing to hold office. Senators serve a 4-year term while Representatives only serve a 2-year term of office. This means that politicians like the late Diane Feinstein had to be reelected every two years by voters in her district. So if you want to blame someone blame the voters.
‘The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. The U.S. Department of Education gives financial assistance to schools and colleges. The Age Discrimination regulation describes conduct that violates the Act. The Age Discrimination regulation is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and is in the Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR Part 110.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not cover employment discrimination. Complaints of employment discrimination based on age may be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.’
‘The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) passed in 1967 forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40.’
-
Interestingly the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not cover employment discrimination. That is a separate law ADEA passed in 1967. The ADEA act does not apply to elected officials.
Obviously, couldn't you infer that from the post?
Ultimately, the voter is responsible to geriatric politicians continuing to hold office. Senators serve a 4-year term while Representatives only serve a 2-year term of office.
Senators serve 6 year terms, not 4.
This means that politicians like the late Diane Feinstein had to be reelected every two years by voters in her district. So if you want to blame someone blame the voters.
Feinstein was a Senator, not a Representative, so she would have served a 6 year term.
‘The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. The U.S. Department of Education gives financial assistance to schools and colleges. The Age Discrimination regulation describes conduct that violates the Act. The Age Discrimination regulation is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and is in the Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR Part 110.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not cover employment discrimination. Complaints of employment discrimination based on age may be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.’
‘The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) passed in 1967 forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40.’
Your usual irrelevant copy paste drivel.
(a)
(1) General. Section 4(f)(2) of the Act provides that it is not unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization
to observe the terms of * * * any bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Act, except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual, and no such * * * employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 12(a) of this Act because of the age of such individuals.
The legislative history of this provision indicates that its purpose is to permit age-based reductions in employee benefit plans where such reductions are justified by significant cost considerations. Accordingly, section 4(f)(2) does not apply, for example, to paid vacations and uninsured paid sick leave, since reductions in these benefits would not be justified by significant cost considerations. Where employee benefit plans do meet the criteria in section 4(f)(2), benefit levels for older workers may be reduced to the extent necessary to achieve approximate equivalency in cost for older and younger workers. A benefit plan will be considered in compliance with the statute where the actual amount of payment made, or cost incurred, in behalf of an older worker is equal to that made or incurred in behalf of a younger worker, even though the older worker may thereby receive a lesser amount of benefits or insurance coverage. Since section 4(f)(2) is an exception from the general non-discrimination provisions of the Act, the burden is on the one seeking to invoke the exception to show that every element has been clearly and unmistakably met. The exception must be narrowly construed. The following sections explain three key elements of the exception:
(i) What a “bona fide employee benefit plan” is;
(ii) What it means to “observe the terms” of such a plan; and
(iii) What kind of plan, or plan provision, would be considered “a subterfuge to evade the purposes of [the] Act.”
There is also a discussion of the application of the general rules governing all plans with respect to specific kinds of employee benefit plans.
(2) Relation of section 4(f)(2) to sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) prohibit specified acts of discrimination on the basis of age. Section 4(a) in particular makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age * * *.” Section 4(f)(2) is an exception to this general prohibition. Where an employer under an employee benefit plan provides the same level of benefits to older workers as to younger workers, there is no violation of section 4(a), and accordingly the practice does not have to be justified under section 4(f)(2).
(b) Bona fide employee benefit plan. Section 4(f)(2) applies only to bona fide employee benefit plans. A plan is considered “bona fide” if its terms (including cessation of contributions or accruals in the case of retirement income plans) have been accurately described in writing to all employees and if it actually provides the benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan. Notifying employees promptly of the provisions and changes in an employee benefit plan is essential if they are to know how the plan affects them. For these purposes, it would be sufficient under the ADEA for employers to follow the disclosure requirements of ERISA and the regulations thereunder. The plan must actually provide the benefits its provisions describe, since otherwise the notification of the provisions to employees is misleading and inaccurate. An “employee benefit plan” is a plan, such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which provides employees with what are frequently referred to as “fringe benefits.” The term does not refer to wages or salary in cash; neither section 4(f)(2) nor any other section of the Act excuses the payment of lower wages or salary to older employees on account of age. Whether or not any particular employee benefit plan may lawfully provide lower benefits to older employees on account of age depends on whether all of the elements of the exception have been met. An “employee-pay-all” employee benefit plan is one of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” with respect to which discrimination on the basis of age is forbidden under section 4(a)(1). In such a plan, benefits for older workers may be reduced only to the extent and according to the same principles as apply to other plans under section 4(f)(2).
(c) “To observe the terms” of a plan. In order for a bona fide employee benefit plan which provides lower benefits to older employees on account of age to be within the section 4(f)(2) exception, the lower benefits must be provided in “observ[ance of] the terms of” the plan. As this statutory text makes clear, the section 4(f)(2) exception is limited to otherwise discriminatory actions which are actually prescribed by the terms of a bona fide employee benefit plan. Where the employer, employment agency, or labor organization is not required by the express provisions of the plan to provide lesser benefits to older workers, section 4(f)(2) does not apply. Important purposes are served by this requirement. Where a discriminatory policy is an express term of a benefit plan, employees presumably have some opportunity to know of the policy and to plan (or protest) accordingly. Moreover, the requirement that the discrimination actually be prescribed by a plan assures that the particular plan provision will be equally applied to all employees of the same age. Where a discriminatory provision is an optional term of the plan, it permits individual, discretionary acts of discrimination, which do not fall within the section 4(f)(2) exception.
(d) Subterfuge. In order for a bona fide employee benefit plan which prescribes lower benefits for older employees on account of age to be within the section 4(f)(2) exception, it must not be “a subterfuge to evade the purposes of [the] Act.” In general, a plan or plan provision which prescribes lower benefits for older employees on account of age is not a “subterfuge” within the meaning of section 4(f)(2), provided that the lower level of benefits is justified by age-related cost considerations. (The only exception to this general rule is with respect to certain retirement plans. See paragraph (f)(4) of this section.) There are certain other requirements that must be met in order for a plan not to be a subterfuge. These requirements are set forth below.
(1) Cost data—general. Cost data used in justification of a benefit plan which provides lower benefits to older employees on account of age must be valid and reasonable. This standard is met where an employer has cost data which show the actual cost to it of providing the particular benefit (or benefits) in question over a representative period of years. An employer may rely in cost data for its own employees over such a period, or on cost data for a larger group of similarly situated employees. Sometimes, as a result of experience rating or other causes, an employer incurs costs that differ significantly from costs for a group of similarly situated employees. Such an employer may not rely on cost data for the similarly situated employees where such reliance would result in significantly lower benefits for its own older employees. Where reliable cost information is not available, reasonable projections made from existing cost data meeting the standards set forth above will be considered acceptable.
(2) Cost data—Individual benefit basis and “benefit package” basis. Cost comparisons and adjustments under section 4(f)(2) must be made on a benefit-by-benefit basis or on a “benefit package” basis, as described below.
(i) Benefit-by-benefit basis. Adjustments made on a benefit-by-benefit basis must be made in the amount or level of a specific form of benefit for a specific event or contingency. For example, higher group term life insurance costs for older workers would justify a corresponding reduction in the amount of group term life insurance coverage for older workers, on the basis of age. However, a benefit-by-benefit approach would not justify the substitution of one form of benefit for another, even though both forms of benefit are designed for the same contingency, such as death. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(ii) “Benefit package” basis. As an alternative to the benefit-by-benefit basis, cost comparisons and adjustments under section 4(f)(2) may be made on a limited “benefit package” basis. Under this approach, subject to the limitations described below, cost comparisons and adjustments can be made with respect to section 4(f)(2) plans in the aggregate. This alternative basis provides greater flexibility than a benefit-by-benefit basis in order to carry out the declared statutory purpose “to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.” A “benefit package” approach is an alternative approach consistent with this purpose and with the general purpose of section 4(f)(2) only if it is not used to reduce the cost to the employer or the favorability to the employees of overall employee benefits for older employees. A “benefit package” approach used for either of these purposes would be a subterfuge to evade the purposes of the Act. In order to assure that such a “benefit package” approach is not abused and is consistent with the legislative intent, it is subject to the limitations described in paragraph (f), which also includes a general example.
(3) Cost data—five year maximum basis. Cost comparisons and adjustments under section 4(f)(2) may be made on the basis of age brackets of up to 5 years. Thus a particular benefit may be reduced for employees of any age within the protected age group by an amount no greater than that which could be justified by the additional cost to provide them with the same level of the benefit as younger employees within a specified five-year age group immediately preceding theirs. For example, where an employer chooses to provide unreduced group term life insurance benefits until age 60, benefits for employees who are between 60 and 65 years of age may be reduced only to the extent necessary to achieve approximate equivalency in costs with employees who are 55 to 60 years old. Similarly, any reductions in benefit levels for 65 to 70 year old employees cannot exceed an amount which is proportional to the additional costs for their coverage over 60 to 65 year old employees.
(4) Employee contributions in support of employee benefit plans —
(i) As a condition of employment. An older employee within the protected age group may not be required as a condition of employment to make greater contributions than a younger employee in support of an employee benefit plan. Such a requirement would be in effect a mandatory reduction in take-home pay, which is never authorized by section 4(f)(2), and would impose an impediment to employment in violation of the specific restrictions in section 4(f)(2).
(ii) As a condition of participation in a voluntary employee benefit plan. An older employee within the protected age group may be required as a condition of participation in a voluntary employee benefit plan to make a greater contribution than a younger employee only if the older employee is not thereby required to bear a greater proportion of the total premium cost (employer-paid and employee-paid) than the younger employee. Otherwise the requirement would discriminate against the older employee by making compensation in the form of an employer contribution available on less favorable terms than for the younger employee and denying that compensation altogether to an older employee unwilling or unable to meet the less favorable terms. Such discrimination is not authorized by section 4(f)(2). This principle applies to three different contribution arrangements as follows:
(A) Employee-pay-all plans. Older employees, like younger employees, may be required to contribute as a condition of participation up to the full premium cost for their age.
(B) Non-contributory (“employer-pay-all”) plans. Where younger employees are not required to contribute any portion of the total premium cost, older employees may not be required to contribute any portion.
(C) Contributory plans. In these plans employers and participating employees share the premium cost. The required contributions of participants may increase with age so long as the proportion of the total premium required to be paid by the participants does not increase with age.
(iii) As an option in order to receive an unreduced benefit. An older employee may be given the option, as an individual, to make the additional contribution necessary to receive the same level of benefits as a younger employee (provided that the contemplated reduction in benefits is otherwise justified by section 4(f)(2)).
(5) Forfeiture clauses. Clauses in employee benefit plans which state that litigation or participation in any manner in a formal proceeding by an employee will result in the forfeiture of his rights are unlawful insofar as they may be applied to those who seek redress under the Act. This is by reason of section 4(d) which provides that it is unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization to discriminate against any individual because such individual “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this Act.”
(6) Refusal to hire clauses. Any provision of an employee benefit plan which requires or permits the refusal to hire an individual specified in section 12(a) of the Act on the basis of age is a subterfuge to evade the purposes of the Act and cannot be excused under section 4(f)(2).
(7) Involuntary retirement clauses. Any provision of an employee benefit plan which requires or permits the involuntary retirement of any individual specified in section 12(a) of the Act on the basis of age is a subterfuge to evade the purpose of the Act and cannot be excused under section 4(f)(2).
(e) Benefits provided by the Government. An employer does not violate the Act by permitting certain benefits to be provided by the Government, even though the availability of such benefits may be based on age. For example, it is not necessary for an employer to provide health benefits which are otherwise provided to certain employees by Medicare. However, the availability of benefits from the Government will not justify a reduction in employer-provided benefits if the result is that, taking the employer-provided and Government-provided benefits together, an older employee is entitled to a lesser benefit of any type (including coverage for family and/or dependents) than a similarly situated younger employee. For example, the availability of certain benefits to an older employee under Medicare will not justify denying an older employee a benefit which is provided to younger employees and is not provided to the older employee by Medicare.
(f) Application of section 4(f)(2) to various employee benefit plans —
(2) “Benefit package” approach. A “benefit package” approach to compliance under section 4(f)(2) offers greater flexibility than a benefit-by-benefit approach by permitting deviations from a benefit-by-benefit approach so long as the overall result is no lesser cost to the employer and no less favorable benefits for employees. As previously noted, in order to assure that such an approach is used for the benefit of older workers and not to their detriment, and is otherwise consistent with the legislative intent, it is subject to limitations as set forth below:
(i) A benefit package approach shall apply only to employee benefit plans which fall within section 4(f)(2).
(ii) A benefit package approach shall not apply to a retirement or pension plan. The 1978 legislative history sets forth specific and comprehensive rules governing such plans, which have been adopted above. These rules are not tied to actuarially significant cost considerations but are intended to deal with the special funding arrangements of retirement or pension plans. Variations from these special rules are therefore not justified by variations from the cost-based benefit-by-benefit approach in other benefit plans, nor may variations from the special rules governing pension and retirement plans justify variations from the benefit-by-benefit approach in other benefit plans.
(iii) A benefit package approach shall not be used to justify reductions in health benefits greater than would be justified under a benefit-by-benefit approach. Such benefits appear to be of particular importance to older workers in meeting “problems arising from the impact of age” and were of particular concern to Congress. Therefore, the “benefit package” approach may not be used to reduce health insurance benefits by more than is warranted by the increase in the cost to the employer of those benefits alone. Any greater reduction would be a subterfuge to evade the purpose of the Act.
(iv) A benefit reduction greater than would be justified under a benefit-by-benefit approach must be offset by another benefit available to the same employees. No employees may be deprived because of age of one benefit without an offsetting benefit being made available to them.
(v) Employers who wish to justify benefit reductions under a benefit package approach must be prepared to produce data to show that those reductions are fully justified. Thus employers must be able to show that deviations from a benefit-by-benefit approach do not result in lesser cost to them or less favorable benefits to their employees. A general example consistent with these limitations may be given. Assume two employee benefit plans, providing Benefit “A” and Benefit “B.” Both plans fall within section 4(f)(2), and neither is a retirement or pension plan subject to special rules. Both benefits are available to all employees. Age-based cost increases would justify a 10% decrease in both benefits on a benefit-by-benefit basis. The affected employees would, however, find it more favorable—that is, more consistent with meeting their needs—for no reduction to be made in Benefit “A” and a greater reduction to be made in Benefit “B.” This “trade-off” would not result in a reduction in health benefits. The “trade-off” may therefore be made. The details of the “trade-off” depend on data on the relative cost to the employer of the two benefits. If the data show that Benefit “A” and Benefit “B” cost the same, Benefit “B” may be reduced up to 20% if Benefit “A” is unreduced. If the data show that Benefit “A” costs only half as much as Benefit “B”, however, Benefit “B” may be reduced up to only 15% if Benefit “A” is unreduced, since a greater reduction in Benefit “B” would result in an impermissible reduction in total benefit costs.
(g) Relation of ADEA to State laws. The ADEA does not preempt State age discrimination in employment laws. However, the failure of the ADEA to preempt such laws does not affect the issue of whether section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts State laws which related to employee benefit plans.
-
Is it considered employment if they are called public servants?
-
Obviously, couldn't you infer that from the post?
Senators serve 6 year terms, not 4.
Feinstein was a Senator, not a Representative, so she would have served a 6 year term.
Your usual irrelevant copy paste drivel.
(a)
(1) General. Section 4(f)(2) of the Act provides that it is not unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization
to observe the terms of * * * any bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Act, except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual, and no such * * * employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 12(a) of this Act because of the age of such individuals.
The legislative history of this provision indicates that its purpose is to permit age-based reductions in employee benefit plans where such reductions are justified by significant cost considerations. Accordingly, section 4(f)(2) does not apply, for example, to paid vacations and uninsured paid sick leave, since reductions in these benefits would not be justified by significant cost considerations. Where employee benefit plans do meet the criteria in section 4(f)(2), benefit levels for older workers may be reduced to the extent necessary to achieve approximate equivalency in cost for older and younger workers. A benefit plan will be considered in compliance with the statute where the actual amount of payment made, or cost incurred, in behalf of an older worker is equal to that made or incurred in behalf of a younger worker, even though the older worker may thereby receive a lesser amount of benefits or insurance coverage. Since section 4(f)(2) is an exception from the general non-discrimination provisions of the Act, the burden is on the one seeking to invoke the exception to show that every element has been clearly and unmistakably met. The exception must be narrowly construed. The following sections explain three key elements of the exception:
(i) What a “bona fide employee benefit plan” is;
(ii) What it means to “observe the terms” of such a plan; and
(iii) What kind of plan, or plan provision, would be considered “a subterfuge to evade the purposes of [the] Act.”
There is also a discussion of the application of the general rules governing all plans with respect to specific kinds of employee benefit plans.
(2) Relation of section 4(f)(2) to sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) prohibit specified acts of discrimination on the basis of age. Section 4(a) in particular makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age * * *.” Section 4(f)(2) is an exception to this general prohibition. Where an employer under an employee benefit plan provides the same level of benefits to older workers as to younger workers, there is no violation of section 4(a), and accordingly the practice does not have to be justified under section 4(f)(2).
(b) Bona fide employee benefit plan. Section 4(f)(2) applies only to bona fide employee benefit plans. A plan is considered “bona fide” if its terms (including cessation of contributions or accruals in the case of retirement income plans) have been accurately described in writing to all employees and if it actually provides the benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan. Notifying employees promptly of the provisions and changes in an employee benefit plan is essential if they are to know how the plan affects them. For these purposes, it would be sufficient under the ADEA for employers to follow the disclosure requirements of ERISA and the regulations thereunder. The plan must actually provide the benefits its provisions describe, since otherwise the notification of the provisions to employees is misleading and inaccurate. An “employee benefit plan” is a plan, such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which provides employees with what are frequently referred to as “fringe benefits.” The term does not refer to wages or salary in cash; neither section 4(f)(2) nor any other section of the Act excuses the payment of lower wages or salary to older employees on account of age. Whether or not any particular employee benefit plan may lawfully provide lower benefits to older employees on account of age depends on whether all of the elements of the exception have been met. An “employee-pay-all” employee benefit plan is one of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” with respect to which discrimination on the basis of age is forbidden under section 4(a)(1). In such a plan, benefits for older workers may be reduced only to the extent and according to the same principles as apply to other plans under section 4(f)(2).
(c) “To observe the terms” of a plan. In order for a bona fide employee benefit plan which provides lower benefits to older employees on account of age to be within the section 4(f)(2) exception, the lower benefits must be provided in “observ[ance of] the terms of” the plan. As this statutory text makes clear, the section 4(f)(2) exception is limited to otherwise discriminatory actions which are actually prescribed by the terms of a bona fide employee benefit plan. Where the employer, employment agency, or labor organization is not required by the express provisions of the plan to provide lesser benefits to older workers, section 4(f)(2) does not apply. Important purposes are served by this requirement. Where a discriminatory policy is an express term of a benefit plan, employees presumably have some opportunity to know of the policy and to plan (or protest) accordingly. Moreover, the requirement that the discrimination actually be prescribed by a plan assures that the particular plan provision will be equally applied to all employees of the same age. Where a discriminatory provision is an optional term of the plan, it permits individual, discretionary acts of discrimination, which do not fall within the section 4(f)(2) exception.
(d) Subterfuge. In order for a bona fide employee benefit plan which prescribes lower benefits for older employees on account of age to be within the section 4(f)(2) exception, it must not be “a subterfuge to evade the purposes of [the] Act.” In general, a plan or plan provision which prescribes lower benefits for older employees on account of age is not a “subterfuge” within the meaning of section 4(f)(2), provided that the lower level of benefits is justified by age-related cost considerations. (The only exception to this general rule is with respect to certain retirement plans. See paragraph (f)(4) of this section.) There are certain other requirements that must be met in order for a plan not to be a subterfuge. These requirements are set forth below.
(1) Cost data—general. Cost data used in justification of a benefit plan which provides lower benefits to older employees on account of age must be valid and reasonable. This standard is met where an employer has cost data which show the actual cost to it of providing the particular benefit (or benefits) in question over a representative period of years. An employer may rely in cost data for its own employees over such a period, or on cost data for a larger group of similarly situated employees. Sometimes, as a result of experience rating or other causes, an employer incurs costs that differ significantly from costs for a group of similarly situated employees. Such an employer may not rely on cost data for the similarly situated employees where such reliance would result in significantly lower benefits for its own older employees. Where reliable cost information is not available, reasonable projections made from existing cost data meeting the standards set forth above will be considered acceptable.
(2) Cost data—Individual benefit basis and “benefit package” basis. Cost comparisons and adjustments under section 4(f)(2) must be made on a benefit-by-benefit basis or on a “benefit package” basis, as described below.
(i) Benefit-by-benefit basis. Adjustments made on a benefit-by-benefit basis must be made in the amount or level of a specific form of benefit for a specific event or contingency. For example, higher group term life insurance costs for older workers would justify a corresponding reduction in the amount of group term life insurance coverage for older workers, on the basis of age. However, a benefit-by-benefit approach would not justify the substitution of one form of benefit for another, even though both forms of benefit are designed for the same contingency, such as death. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(ii) “Benefit package” basis. As an alternative to the benefit-by-benefit basis, cost comparisons and adjustments under section 4(f)(2) may be made on a limited “benefit package” basis. Under this approach, subject to the limitations described below, cost comparisons and adjustments can be made with respect to section 4(f)(2) plans in the aggregate. This alternative basis provides greater flexibility than a benefit-by-benefit basis in order to carry out the declared statutory purpose “to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.” A “benefit package” approach is an alternative approach consistent with this purpose and with the general purpose of section 4(f)(2) only if it is not used to reduce the cost to the employer or the favorability to the employees of overall employee benefits for older employees. A “benefit package” approach used for either of these purposes would be a subterfuge to evade the purposes of the Act. In order to assure that such a “benefit package” approach is not abused and is consistent with the legislative intent, it is subject to the limitations described in paragraph (f), which also includes a general example.
(3) Cost data—five year maximum basis. Cost comparisons and adjustments under section 4(f)(2) may be made on the basis of age brackets of up to 5 years. Thus a particular benefit may be reduced for employees of any age within the protected age group by an amount no greater than that which could be justified by the additional cost to provide them with the same level of the benefit as younger employees within a specified five-year age group immediately preceding theirs. For example, where an employer chooses to provide unreduced group term life insurance benefits until age 60, benefits for employees who are between 60 and 65 years of age may be reduced only to the extent necessary to achieve approximate equivalency in costs with employees who are 55 to 60 years old. Similarly, any reductions in benefit levels for 65 to 70 year old employees cannot exceed an amount which is proportional to the additional costs for their coverage over 60 to 65 year old employees.
(4) Employee contributions in support of employee benefit plans —
(i) As a condition of employment. An older employee within the protected age group may not be required as a condition of employment to make greater contributions than a younger employee in support of an employee benefit plan. Such a requirement would be in effect a mandatory reduction in take-home pay, which is never authorized by section 4(f)(2), and would impose an impediment to employment in violation of the specific restrictions in section 4(f)(2).
(ii) As a condition of participation in a voluntary employee benefit plan. An older employee within the protected age group may be required as a condition of participation in a voluntary employee benefit plan to make a greater contribution than a younger employee only if the older employee is not thereby required to bear a greater proportion of the total premium cost (employer-paid and employee-paid) than the younger employee. Otherwise the requirement would discriminate against the older employee by making compensation in the form of an employer contribution available on less favorable terms than for the younger employee and denying that compensation altogether to an older employee unwilling or unable to meet the less favorable terms. Such discrimination is not authorized by section 4(f)(2). This principle applies to three different contribution arrangements as follows:
(A) Employee-pay-all plans. Older employees, like younger employees, may be required to contribute as a condition of participation up to the full premium cost for their age.
(B) Non-contributory (“employer-pay-all”) plans. Where younger employees are not required to contribute any portion of the total premium cost, older employees may not be required to contribute any portion.
(C) Contributory plans. In these plans employers and participating employees share the premium cost. The required contributions of participants may increase with age so long as the proportion of the total premium required to be paid by the participants does not increase with age.
(iii) As an option in order to receive an unreduced benefit. An older employee may be given the option, as an individual, to make the additional contribution necessary to receive the same level of benefits as a younger employee (provided that the contemplated reduction in benefits is otherwise justified by section 4(f)(2)).
(5) Forfeiture clauses. Clauses in employee benefit plans which state that litigation or participation in any manner in a formal proceeding by an employee will result in the forfeiture of his rights are unlawful insofar as they may be applied to those who seek redress under the Act. This is by reason of section 4(d) which provides that it is unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization to discriminate against any individual because such individual “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this Act.”
(6) Refusal to hire clauses. Any provision of an employee benefit plan which requires or permits the refusal to hire an individual specified in section 12(a) of the Act on the basis of age is a subterfuge to evade the purposes of the Act and cannot be excused under section 4(f)(2).
(7) Involuntary retirement clauses. Any provision of an employee benefit plan which requires or permits the involuntary retirement of any individual specified in section 12(a) of the Act on the basis of age is a subterfuge to evade the purpose of the Act and cannot be excused under section 4(f)(2).
(e) Benefits provided by the Government. An employer does not violate the Act by permitting certain benefits to be provided by the Government, even though the availability of such benefits may be based on age. For example, it is not necessary for an employer to provide health benefits which are otherwise provided to certain employees by Medicare. However, the availability of benefits from the Government will not justify a reduction in employer-provided benefits if the result is that, taking the employer-provided and Government-provided benefits together, an older employee is entitled to a lesser benefit of any type (including coverage for family and/or dependents) than a similarly situated younger employee. For example, the availability of certain benefits to an older employee under Medicare will not justify denying an older employee a benefit which is provided to younger employees and is not provided to the older employee by Medicare.
(f) Application of section 4(f)(2) to various employee benefit plans —
(2) “Benefit package” approach. A “benefit package” approach to compliance under section 4(f)(2) offers greater flexibility than a benefit-by-benefit approach by permitting deviations from a benefit-by-benefit approach so long as the overall result is no lesser cost to the employer and no less favorable benefits for employees. As previously noted, in order to assure that such an approach is used for the benefit of older workers and not to their detriment, and is otherwise consistent with the legislative intent, it is subject to limitations as set forth below:
(i) A benefit package approach shall apply only to employee benefit plans which fall within section 4(f)(2).
(ii) A benefit package approach shall not apply to a retirement or pension plan. The 1978 legislative history sets forth specific and comprehensive rules governing such plans, which have been adopted above. These rules are not tied to actuarially significant cost considerations but are intended to deal with the special funding arrangements of retirement or pension plans. Variations from these special rules are therefore not justified by variations from the cost-based benefit-by-benefit approach in other benefit plans, nor may variations from the special rules governing pension and retirement plans justify variations from the benefit-by-benefit approach in other benefit plans.
(iii) A benefit package approach shall not be used to justify reductions in health benefits greater than would be justified under a benefit-by-benefit approach. Such benefits appear to be of particular importance to older workers in meeting “problems arising from the impact of age” and were of particular concern to Congress. Therefore, the “benefit package” approach may not be used to reduce health insurance benefits by more than is warranted by the increase in the cost to the employer of those benefits alone. Any greater reduction would be a subterfuge to evade the purpose of the Act.
(iv) A benefit reduction greater than would be justified under a benefit-by-benefit approach must be offset by another benefit available to the same employees. No employees may be deprived because of age of one benefit without an offsetting benefit being made available to them.
(v) Employers who wish to justify benefit reductions under a benefit package approach must be prepared to produce data to show that those reductions are fully justified. Thus employers must be able to show that deviations from a benefit-by-benefit approach do not result in lesser cost to them or less favorable benefits to their employees. A general example consistent with these limitations may be given. Assume two employee benefit plans, providing Benefit “A” and Benefit “B.” Both plans fall within section 4(f)(2), and neither is a retirement or pension plan subject to special rules. Both benefits are available to all employees. Age-based cost increases would justify a 10% decrease in both benefits on a benefit-by-benefit basis. The affected employees would, however, find it more favorable—that is, more consistent with meeting their needs—for no reduction to be made in Benefit “A” and a greater reduction to be made in Benefit “B.” This “trade-off” would not result in a reduction in health benefits. The “trade-off” may therefore be made. The details of the “trade-off” depend on data on the relative cost to the employer of the two benefits. If the data show that Benefit “A” and Benefit “B” cost the same, Benefit “B” may be reduced up to 20% if Benefit “A” is unreduced. If the data show that Benefit “A” costs only half as much as Benefit “B”, however, Benefit “B” may be reduced up to only 15% if Benefit “A” is unreduced, since a greater reduction in Benefit “B” would result in an impermissible reduction in total benefit costs.
(g) Relation of ADEA to State laws. The ADEA does not preempt State age discrimination in employment laws. However, the failure of the ADEA to preempt such laws does not affect the issue of whether section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts State laws which related to employee benefit plans.
Thanks for the corrections... seriously.
Two thoughts come to mind. One is 'cut and paste' reduces errors (at least in my case) and clarifies details which some folks prefer to overlook because opinions and not facts are key to so many Getbig discussions. Second, the length of the term was not my point. All legislators are elected by their constituents. Senator Diane Feinstein was 90 years old when she passed. There was one year left in her current term. The last time she was elected to the Senate, she was 85 years old and clearly geriatric, yet her constituents reelected her for another 6 years.
My observations stand, if folks want younger more vibrant people in elected positions, the ball is in their court. This is not ‘rocket science!’
-
Is it considered employment if they are called public servants?
LOL! I rather doubt it. And I am confident enough that I am correct to not to bother 'googling it'. The term public servant is not one I like. Why? To call them servants is demeaning considering the responsibility these folks take on.
-
LOL! I rather doubt it. And I am confident enough that I am correct to not to bother 'googling it'. The term public servant is not one I like. Why? To call them servants is demeaning considering the responsibility these folks take on.
Demeaning? We the people put them in those positions that they seek out to "serve" us. Problem is they have forgotten who they serve and they views us as their subjects.
-
Demeaning? We the people put them in those positions that they seek out to "serve" us. Problem is they have forgotten who they serve and they views us as their subjects.
You are not wrong. What is also often the case is that the more times politicians get reelected, the more likely they are to forget why they hold the office they do. But as long as much of the voting public is lazy and chooses to remain uninformed about the candidates they elect, the less they have the right to complain. When something is broken. Fix it... and the sooner the better. Gives new meaning to the idea of ‘deferred maintenance.’
-
Thanks for the corrections... seriously.
Two thoughts come to mind. One is 'cut and paste' reduces errors (at least in my case) and clarifies details which some folks prefer to overlook because opinions and not facts are key to so many Getbig discussions. Second, the length of the term was not my point. All legislators are elected by their constituents. Senator Diane Feinstein was 90 years old when she passed. There was one year left in her current term. The last time she was elected to the Senate, she was 85 years old and clearly geriatric, yet her constituents reelected her for another 6 years.
My observations stand, if folks want younger more vibrant people in elected positions, the ball is in their court. This is not ‘rocket science!’
The point is there are already age limits preventing only younger people from being elected, see previous post. Likewise, if 34 is too young to be President and 29 too young to be Senator, why was a fossil like Feinstein fine at 90 years old or Strom Thurmond at 99 years old, who had to be wheeled in the Senate while barely understanding what's going on around them? Obviously incumbency plays a big role and is pretty much an "auto-pilot" feature that usually guarantees perpetual re-election. Cognitive tests will probably not do much but imagine in the case some career politician with 30+ year career failed that test, there would immediately be accusations of political bias, even if they are valid. I think term limits combined with age limits (minimum and maximum) are feasible. But I think I already strayed too far from the original discussion topic and I don't want to derail Grape Ape's thread.