Four Quid pro quos

[alexava 6,973]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Perhaps. BTW, Christopher Steele says hello.

That’s irrelevant and not a parallel comparison. 

[AUFAN78 3,916]

13 minutes ago, alexava said:

That’s irrelevant and not a parallel comparison. 

Not in the least. But Hillary approves your message.

[AUFAN78 3,916]

8 minutes ago, alexava said:

There’s resistance. Uncalled for at times. But this is plain and simple corruption. Trump did what he is accused of. He was not forthcoming. Not legal. Not ethical in any way. All he has in his favor is a republican majority in the senate. Which makes this trial a waste of time.  
there have also been nonpartisan people and republicans that have been truthful in their assessment and testimony against trump that are called “never trumpers “. People have gone the other way politically from you as well. 

Sorry I skipped this one. Missed it.

Please expound on this: "But this is plain and simple corruption. Trump did what he is accused of. He was not forthcoming. Not legal. Not ethical in any way."

[alexava 6,973]

Explain why hunter Biden should be a witness? I would not be opposed to it. But what could he possibly have to help or hurt either way?

[homersapien 11,396]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Amazing that you can read Trumps mind.

Look I like it that you love Biden so much and give him all this potential to be the nominee and beat Trump. Keep it up loud and long and I hope dearly that your friends in high places at the DNC will take heed and make sure he is nominated. 

My opinion of Biden has nothing to do with the lie you are propagating - a lie that any thinking, well informed person knows is a lie.

[homersapien 11,396]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Sorry I skipped this one. Missed it.

Please expound on this: "But this is plain and simple corruption. Trump did what he is accused of. He was not forthcoming. Not legal. Not ethical in any way."

It's called the truth - a fact in accordance with reality.

 

[AUFAN78 3,916]

4 hours ago, alexava said:

Explain why hunter Biden should be a witness? I would not be opposed to it. But what could he possibly have to help or hurt either way?

You either believe his appointment is above board or you don't. I don't. BTW, I don't think you believe it is either.

[AUFAN78 3,916]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's called the truth - a fact in accordance with reality.

 

Well get on with providing said facts homey. 

[homersapien 11,396]

20 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well get on with providing said facts homey. 

Known Facts: 

• Trump illegally held military aid for Ukraine in an effort to extort Ukraine into "announcing" an investigation of Hunter Biden for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election.
• Trump also used the opportunity for the president of Ukraine to have a face to face meeting in the whitehouse as leverage for the same end.
• Trump has obstructed the house investigation by forbidding witnesses with first hand knowledge from testifying in the house investigation.
• Trump employed his personal lawyer - Rudi Giuliani  - to circumvent and undermine the US State Department in an effort to promote the (Russian) debunked theory that it was Ukraine who hacked the Democratic computer systems instead of Russia, thus denying the intelligence of US agencies and compromising US security (by helping our enemy), as well as pushing for the Ukranian "announcement" of a Biden investigation.

There is overwhelming evidence to support the above facts, including outright admissions by Trump himself, Giuliani and his chief of staff, Mulvaney. 

Anyone who has been playing the slightest bit of attention - which obviously doesn't include you - knows this.

Unfortunately for Trump and the Republicans, such facts will continue to emerge over time, regardless of the Senate verdict in the impeachment case:

 

Schiff asked GOP senators a tough question. The answer is awful.

As Rep. Adam Schiff continued building his case against President Trump late into Wednesday evening, Trump fired off one angry Twitter missive after another, until he finally crossed the 140 mark, perhaps his most prolific day of tweeting and retweeting ever.

All those tweets, many of which amplified the preposterous claim that Trump did nothing whatsoever wrong, sent GOP senators and their staffers an unmistakable message: Trump is watching the proceedings very carefully. If you vote to allow new witnesses and evidence, there will be absolute hell to pay.

At one point, Schiff, the California Democrat who is leading the team of House impeachment managers, asked GOP senators a question.

“The truth is going to come out,” Schiff said. “The only question is: Do you want to hear it now? Do you want to know the full truth now?”

This argument has been ubiquitous, including on this blog: GOP senators who vote against subpoenaing new witnesses and documents run the risk that more damning revelations will come out after any such vote, and after their inevitable acquittal. This could allow those revelations to be hung around their necks, as examples of what they sought to help Trump cover up.

But it’s now clear we’ve been looking at this from the wrong angle. The truth, plainly, is that in this scenario, the fact that the votes on evidence and acquittal will come before any future revelations is a feature of doing it this way.

That’s because a vote for acquittal (which, again, is inevitable) before more damning revelations are unearthed is politically less costly than a vote for acquittal after any such revelations.

Yes, future revelations will stand as evidence of what GOP senators covered up. But that’s still politically less risky, from their perspective, than taking the chance that new evidence could be still more damning than what’s already known, and that they’d have to then acquit at that point.

This is why the argument that Schiff and many of us have made has been a bit like shooting spitballs into a concrete wall.

The obvious reason for the blockade has been that Republicans want to help Trump execute the coverup. But the raw incentives for senators themselves also tilt against new witnesses and evidence, especially given the likelihood of new revelations later. Senators can try to dismiss future revelations with a wave of the hand — Trump has already been acquitted; we’ve moved on.

New reporting from CNN’s Manu Raju underscores the point. As Raju reports, no GOP senator wants to be the 51st and decisive vote for new witnesses and evidence. So the only way we’ll get new evidence is if a larger bloc of GOP senators breaks toward this outcome, resulting in, say, 54 or 55 votes for it.

But as Raju notes, “at the moment, that is not within the realm of possibility.”

Plainly, the prospect of being the 51st vote for transparency, accountability and the full truth would constitute a betrayal of loyalty to Trump that will not be countenanced.

No GOP senator wants to suffer such horrifying ignominy. And the inevitable vote to acquit will be easier, the less one knows about just how corrupt Trump’s scheme really was.

The coverup will mostly fail. Here’s why.

Still, time is working against Trump. What has already been demonstrated by House Democrats is incredibly damning. But since the impeachment vote, digging by good-government groups, supplemented by investigative reporting, has shown that concerns inside the administration about the illegality and impropriety of Trump’s corrupt freezing of military aid to extort Ukraine ran far deeper than we knew.

More is coming. The nonprofit group American Oversight just received reams of new emails, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, from the White House budget office showing that on the day Trump pressured the Ukrainian president, White House officials were still working to justify the aid freeze’s legality, creating previously unknown internal tensions.

But many of those documents are heavily redacted.

Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight, tells me the group will be negotiating with the White House budget office about getting some redactions lifted, and if it doesn’t sufficiently comply, it’s back into court. It’s perfectly plausible, though hardly guaranteed, that a ruling may lift many redactions in the next few months.

One can envision numerous possibilities emerging from those documents. For instance, it’s plausible that the redactions cover up internal conversations, or additional concerns, about Trump’s rationale for freezing the aid.

Remember, when the Just Security website was able to peer under the redactions in a previous batch of emails, it was very revelatory.

What’s more, American Oversight is suing for still more documents. According to the group, two new batches are due from the State Department in February. Those requests concern, among other things, communications to and from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top officials regarding Trump lawyer Rudolph Giuliani’s escapades in Ukraine to unearth dirt smearing Joe Biden.

Those, too, will be redacted. But if necessary, American Oversight will go to court on that as well, and an eventual ruling in the group’s favor is a genuine possibility. The point is that it’s very likely that more incriminating information will indeed come out.

There is a strangely ingrained media narrative that tends to treat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as the deviously clever and all-controlling wizard behind the Senate curtain. And, yes, McConnell may persuade GOP senators to answer Schiff’s question with a resounding “no,” in an effort to carry Trump’s coverup to completion.

But McConnell’s control over what we end up learning is not absolute. And neither is Trump’s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/schiff-asked-gop-senators-tough-question-answer-is-awful/ 

[AUFAN78 3,916]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Known Facts: 

• Trump illegally held military aid for Ukraine in an effort to extort Ukraine into "announcing" an investigation of Hunter Biden for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election.
• Trump also used the opportunity for the president of Ukraine to have a face to face meeting in the whitehouse as leverage for the same end.
• Trump has obstructed the house investigation by forbidding witnesses with first hand knowledge from testifying in the house investigation.
• Trump employed his personal lawyer - Rudi Giuliani  - to circumvent and undermine the US State Department in an effort to promote the (Russian) debunked theory that it was Ukraine who hacked the Democratic computer systems instead of Russia, thus denying the intelligence of US agencies and compromising US security (by helping our enemy), as well as pushing for the Ukranian "announcement" of a Biden investigation.

There is overwhelming evidence to support the above facts, including outright admissions by Trump himself, Giuliani and his chief of staff, Mulvaney. 

Anyone who has been playing the slightest bit of attention - which obviously doesn't include you - knows this.

Unfortunately for Trump and the Republicans, such facts will continue to emerge over time, regardless of the Senate verdict in the impeachment case:

 

Schiff asked GOP senators a tough question. The answer is awful.

As Rep. Adam Schiff continued building his case against President Trump late into Wednesday evening, Trump fired off one angry Twitter missive after another, until he finally crossed the 140 mark, perhaps his most prolific day of tweeting and retweeting ever.

All those tweets, many of which amplified the preposterous claim that Trump did nothing whatsoever wrong, sent GOP senators and their staffers an unmistakable message: Trump is watching the proceedings very carefully. If you vote to allow new witnesses and evidence, there will be absolute hell to pay.

At one point, Schiff, the California Democrat who is leading the team of House impeachment managers, asked GOP senators a question.

“The truth is going to come out,” Schiff said. “The only question is: Do you want to hear it now? Do you want to know the full truth now?”

This argument has been ubiquitous, including on this blog: GOP senators who vote against subpoenaing new witnesses and documents run the risk that more damning revelations will come out after any such vote, and after their inevitable acquittal. This could allow those revelations to be hung around their necks, as examples of what they sought to help Trump cover up.

But it’s now clear we’ve been looking at this from the wrong angle. The truth, plainly, is that in this scenario, the fact that the votes on evidence and acquittal will come before any future revelations is a feature of doing it this way.

That’s because a vote for acquittal (which, again, is inevitable) before more damning revelations are unearthed is politically less costly than a vote for acquittal after any such revelations.

Yes, future revelations will stand as evidence of what GOP senators covered up. But that’s still politically less risky, from their perspective, than taking the chance that new evidence could be still more damning than what’s already known, and that they’d have to then acquit at that point.

This is why the argument that Schiff and many of us have made has been a bit like shooting spitballs into a concrete wall.

The obvious reason for the blockade has been that Republicans want to help Trump execute the coverup. But the raw incentives for senators themselves also tilt against new witnesses and evidence, especially given the likelihood of new revelations later. Senators can try to dismiss future revelations with a wave of the hand — Trump has already been acquitted; we’ve moved on.

New reporting from CNN’s Manu Raju underscores the point. As Raju reports, no GOP senator wants to be the 51st and decisive vote for new witnesses and evidence. So the only way we’ll get new evidence is if a larger bloc of GOP senators breaks toward this outcome, resulting in, say, 54 or 55 votes for it.

But as Raju notes, “at the moment, that is not within the realm of possibility.”

Plainly, the prospect of being the 51st vote for transparency, accountability and the full truth would constitute a betrayal of loyalty to Trump that will not be countenanced.

No GOP senator wants to suffer such horrifying ignominy. And the inevitable vote to acquit will be easier, the less one knows about just how corrupt Trump’s scheme really was.

The coverup will mostly fail. Here’s why.

Still, time is working against Trump. What has already been demonstrated by House Democrats is incredibly damning. But since the impeachment vote, digging by good-government groups, supplemented by investigative reporting, has shown that concerns inside the administration about the illegality and impropriety of Trump’s corrupt freezing of military aid to extort Ukraine ran far deeper than we knew.

More is coming. The nonprofit group American Oversight just received reams of new emails, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, from the White House budget office showing that on the day Trump pressured the Ukrainian president, White House officials were still working to justify the aid freeze’s legality, creating previously unknown internal tensions.

But many of those documents are heavily redacted.

Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight, tells me the group will be negotiating with the White House budget office about getting some redactions lifted, and if it doesn’t sufficiently comply, it’s back into court. It’s perfectly plausible, though hardly guaranteed, that a ruling may lift many redactions in the next few months.

One can envision numerous possibilities emerging from those documents. For instance, it’s plausible that the redactions cover up internal conversations, or additional concerns, about Trump’s rationale for freezing the aid.

Remember, when the Just Security website was able to peer under the redactions in a previous batch of emails, it was very revelatory.

What’s more, American Oversight is suing for still more documents. According to the group, two new batches are due from the State Department in February. Those requests concern, among other things, communications to and from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top officials regarding Trump lawyer Rudolph Giuliani’s escapades in Ukraine to unearth dirt smearing Joe Biden.

Those, too, will be redacted. But if necessary, American Oversight will go to court on that as well, and an eventual ruling in the group’s favor is a genuine possibility. The point is that it’s very likely that more incriminating information will indeed come out.

There is a strangely ingrained media narrative that tends to treat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as the deviously clever and all-controlling wizard behind the Senate curtain. And, yes, McConnell may persuade GOP senators to answer Schiff’s question with a resounding “no,” in an effort to carry Trump’s coverup to completion.

But McConnell’s control over what we end up learning is not absolute. And neither is Trump’s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/schiff-asked-gop-senators-tough-question-answer-is-awful/ 

Look Homey, your so called Known Facts read much more as partisan talking points. But if everything you copied and pasted are indeed fact, Trump will be impeached. If they are as I suspect, partisan talking points, he won't.

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

You either believe his appointment is above board or you don't. I don't. BTW, I don't think you believe it is either.

He is not being impeached. 

[AUFAN78 3,916]

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

He is not being impeached. 

No, but he may be on trial soon. I mean, he's already admitted he got the job because of dad. Let that sink in. A board position paying $600K plus a year with no experience in oil and gas. Yet we wonder why anyone would question this?

[alexava 6,973]

53 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No, but he may be on trial soon. I mean, he's already admitted he got the job because of dad. Let that sink in. A board position paying $600K plus a year with no experience in oil and gas. Yet we wonder why anyone would question this?

No. Question it all you want to. But trump is on trial. Hunter Biden has no direct knowledge of what trump did. Therefore he is not a witness that should be called. I don’t think his work in Ukraine even carried over to trumps term. 
the Bidens may or may not be guilty of corruption. That’s not what this trial is about. They are probably clean. We(those who are honest with ourselves) already know trump was also trying to push the Russian election interference on Ukraine in the same phone call. Already disproven bullsheyt. The truths and ethics do not matter to him. That’s obvious. 

[AUFAN78 3,916]

3 hours ago, alexava said:

No. Question it all you want to. But trump is on trial. Hunter Biden has no direct knowledge of what trump did. Therefore he is not a witness that should be called. I don’t think his work in Ukraine even carried over to trumps term. 
the Bidens may or may not be guilty of corruption. That’s not what this trial is about. They are probably clean. We(those who are honest with ourselves) already know trump was also trying to push the Russian election interference on Ukraine in the same phone call. Already disproven bullsheyt. The truths and ethics do not matter to him. That’s obvious. 

Sorry. Much of your take is a partisan one and inaccurate IMO. This trial will clarify the specifics and rule accordingly.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

My opinion of Biden has nothing to do with the lie you are propagating - a lie that any thinking, well informed person knows is a lie.

What lie am I propagating?

[alexava 6,973]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Sorry. Much of your take is a partisan one and inaccurate IMO. This trial will clarify the specifics and rule accordingly.

Where is my inaccuracy? IYO of course..

[homersapien 11,396]

16 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

What lie am I propagating?

That Biden was pressuring Ukraine to remove the prosecutor who was supposedly investigating Burisma and/or his son Hunter.  This is a complete lie that Trump propogated in an interview on Fox News (surprise, surprise!)

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/1/20891510/hunter-biden-burisma-ukraine-shokin

.....Joe Biden didn’t do anything to help Hunter in Ukraine

Back in 2014 after a change of regime in Ukraine, Hunter Biden joined the board of a scandal-plagued Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.

He got paid up to $50,000 per month for the job and the situation constituted the kind of conflict of interest that was normally considered inappropriate in Washington until the Trump era. These days, of course, the president of the United States regularly accepts payments from foreign sources to his company while in office, and so do the Trump children. The Obama administration probably should have done something about this at the time, but the White House couldn’t literally force Hunter not to accept the job. And given the larger family context, you can see why Joe might have been reluctant to confront his son about it.

This would all be a small footnote in history except that by 2016, officials throughout the Obama administration and in Western Europe had come to a consensus that Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t doing enough to crack down on corruption. Biden, as he later colorfully recounted, delivered the message that the West wanted Shokin gone or else loan guarantees would be held up, and Shokin was, in turn, fired.

There was nothing remotely controversial about this at the time. No congressional Republicans complained about it, and the European Union hailed the decision to fire Shokin. The reason there is video footage of Biden touting his personal role in this is it was considered a foreign policy triumph that Biden wanted to claim credit for, not anything sordid or embarrassing.

But Shokin, of course, didn’t want to go down on the theory that he was corrupt or incompetent. So he started offering another theory: he was fired for going after Burisma by Joe Biden operating on behalf of Hunter Biden.

The question of whether Shokin was actually investigating Burisma at all is a matter of dispute (the relevant Ukrainian players have told inconsistent stories), but this is clearly not the reason he was fired. The desire to push him out was fully bipartisan in the United States and reflected a consensus across European governments, not than anything idiosyncratic to Biden......

 

And there are lots of articles explaining the facts of this.  For example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

".........At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some eyebrows in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr. Biden received payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.

A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, a job similar to the attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.

But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin. In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin’s ouster. The next March, Mr. Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.

Mr. Biden took credit for the firing of Mr. Shokin as a foreign policy win during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018, when he boasted about holding up a loan guarantee to Ukraine until Mr. Shokin was removed."

 

 

So Biden was advocating the firing of Shokin for the exact opposite reason you state, Shokin was not doing enough to investigate Burisma and other.

Here's another from the AP:

https://apnews.com/9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c

The story behind Biden’s son, Ukraine and Trump’s claims

"....The matter, however, has continued to be questioned by Trump and his allies. They’ve pointed in particular to Biden’s move in March 2016 to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had previously led an investigation into Burisma’s owner.

Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption."

Corruption has continued to fester in Ukraine. In May, the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, came into office with no political experience but with bold promises to put an end to the corrupt practices.

Around this time, Giuliani began reaching out to Zelenskiy and his aides to press for a government investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden’s role with the company.

In a Fox News interview on May 19, Trump claimed the former Ukrainian prosecutor “was after” Joe Biden’s son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this.

Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster.

 

 

I am betting you didn't even know the name of the Ukranian prosecutor in question before reading these articles, did you?

 

Trump - the greatest liar in history - states a lie to deliberately obfuscate the truth and slander a future political opponent.  Youjust swallow it whole. Gullible.

[AUFAN78 3,916]

18 hours ago, alexava said:

Where is my inaccuracy? IYO of course..

Watch for the outcome of the trial. Should give you the first clue.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

That Biden was pressuring Ukraine to remove the prosecutor who was supposedly investigating Burisma and/or his son Hunter.  This is a complete lie that Trump propogated in an interview on Fox News (surprise, surprise!)

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/1/20891510/hunter-biden-burisma-ukraine-shokin

.....Joe Biden didn’t do anything to help Hunter in Ukraine

Back in 2014 after a change of regime in Ukraine, Hunter Biden joined the board of a scandal-plagued Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.

He got paid up to $50,000 per month for the job and the situation constituted the kind of conflict of interest that was normally considered inappropriate in Washington until the Trump era. These days, of course, the president of the United States regularly accepts payments from foreign sources to his company while in office, and so do the Trump children. The Obama administration probably should have done something about this at the time, but the White House couldn’t literally force Hunter not to accept the job. And given the larger family context, you can see why Joe might have been reluctant to confront his son about it.

This would all be a small footnote in history except that by 2016, officials throughout the Obama administration and in Western Europe had come to a consensus that Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t doing enough to crack down on corruption. Biden, as he later colorfully recounted, delivered the message that the West wanted Shokin gone or else loan guarantees would be held up, and Shokin was, in turn, fired.

There was nothing remotely controversial about this at the time. No congressional Republicans complained about it, and the European Union hailed the decision to fire Shokin. The reason there is video footage of Biden touting his personal role in this is it was considered a foreign policy triumph that Biden wanted to claim credit for, not anything sordid or embarrassing.

But Shokin, of course, didn’t want to go down on the theory that he was corrupt or incompetent. So he started offering another theory: he was fired for going after Burisma by Joe Biden operating on behalf of Hunter Biden.

The question of whether Shokin was actually investigating Burisma at all is a matter of dispute (the relevant Ukrainian players have told inconsistent stories), but this is clearly not the reason he was fired. The desire to push him out was fully bipartisan in the United States and reflected a consensus across European governments, not than anything idiosyncratic to Biden......

 

And there are lots of articles explaining the facts of this.  For example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

".........At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some eyebrows in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr. Biden received payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.

A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, a job similar to the attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.

But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin. In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin’s ouster. The next March, Mr. Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.

Mr. Biden took credit for the firing of Mr. Shokin as a foreign policy win during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018, when he boasted about holding up a loan guarantee to Ukraine until Mr. Shokin was removed."

 

 

So Biden was advocating the firing of Shokin for the exact opposite reason you state, Shokin was not doing enough to investigate Burisma and other.

Here's another from the AP:

https://apnews.com/9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c

The story behind Biden’s son, Ukraine and Trump’s claims

"....The matter, however, has continued to be questioned by Trump and his allies. They’ve pointed in particular to Biden’s move in March 2016 to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had previously led an investigation into Burisma’s owner.

Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption."

Corruption has continued to fester in Ukraine. In May, the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, came into office with no political experience but with bold promises to put an end to the corrupt practices.

Around this time, Giuliani began reaching out to Zelenskiy and his aides to press for a government investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden’s role with the company.

In a Fox News interview on May 19, Trump claimed the former Ukrainian prosecutor “was after” Joe Biden’s son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this.

Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster.

 

 

I am betting you didn't even know the name of the Ukranian prosecutor in question before reading these articles, did you?

 

Trump - the greatest liar in history - states a lie to deliberately obfuscate the truth and slander a future political opponent.  Youjust swallow it whole. Gullible.

Thanks for the explanation. So Biden demanded the firing of Shokin, so they would appoint another prosecutor who would do MORE investigation of Burisma (assuming Burisma is a company that was or could have been investigated), thereby exposing his son to MORE potential accusations/involvement.  Just to be clear you don't see anything suspicious about Hunter Biden and his appointment to the board of Burisma while his father was VP and in charge of Ukraine policy.  Can you answer that for me?

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

 Can you answer that for me?

If you do mind my me intruding......"debunked". Everything about the Biden's has been "debunked". Wish some people and the media could come with a different word, sick of it.

BTW, do not feel alone. We have all seen the below question

 

"I am betting you didn't even know the name of the Ukranian prosecutor in question before reading these articles, did you?"

[jj3jordan 2,056]

On 1/24/2020 at 7:59 PM, SaltyTiger said:

If you do mind my me intruding......"debunked". Everything about the Biden's has been "debunked". Wish some people and the media could come with a different word, sick of it.

BTW, do not feel alone. We have all seen the below question

 

"I am betting you didn't even know the name of the Ukranian prosecutor in question before reading these articles, did you?"

Debunked?  Are you saying that Hunter Biden did not get a job on the board at Burisma with no qualifications making a really great salary while his father was the VP and in charge of Ukraine policy?

Sir that is fact not fiction.

[homersapien 11,396]

On 1/23/2020 at 1:48 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Look Homey, your so called Known Facts read much more as partisan talking points. But if everything you copied and pasted are indeed fact, Trump will be impeached. If they are as I suspect, partisan talking points, he won't.

BS.  He is not going to be impeached because the GOP has become a spineless ethic-free political cult.

But this will not go away because they won't it to. Many of the witnesses will ultimately reveal the confirmation of Trump's guilt.  Hell, Bolton already has a book in the works.

The American people know a cover-up when they see it. (Well, at least the intelligent ones do.)

[homersapien 11,396]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Debunked?  Are you saying that Hunter Biden did not get a job on the board at Burisma with no qualifications making a really great salary while his father was the VP and in charge of Ukraine policy?

Sir that is fact not fiction.

So investigate him.  The Republicans already have the power to do so.  Do it.  I am all for it.

And then let's investigate Trump's children, -including the advantages they have received, like Chinese patents - while working for the POTUS.

But more to the point, what does Hunter Biden have to do with Trump halting military aid, trying to extort the Ukrainians for an "announcement" of an investigation into a likely political rival, propogating Russian propaganda, firing a qualified US ambassador on the advice of Lev Parnas, of all people?

 

 

[homersapien 11,396]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Debunked?  Are you saying that Hunter Biden did not get a job on the board at Burisma with no qualifications making a really great salary while his father was the VP and in charge of Ukraine policy?

Sir that is fact not fiction.

Do you still back Trump's lie about that Joe Biden's criticism of Shokin was to protect his son Hunter?

Are you willing to admit you were wrong? 

 

The story behind Biden’s son, Ukraine and Trump’s claims

"....The matter, however, has continued to be questioned by Trump and his allies. They’ve pointed in particular to Biden’s move in March 2016 to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had previously led an investigation into Burisma’s owner.

Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption."

Corruption has continued to fester in Ukraine. In May, the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, came into office with no political experience but with bold promises to put an end to the corrupt practices.

Around this time, Giuliani began reaching out to Zelenskiy and his aides to press for a government investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden’s role with the company.

In a Fox News interview on May 19, Trump claimed the former Ukrainian prosecutor “was after” Joe Biden’s son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this.

Ukraine’s current prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was quoted by Bloomberg News in May as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Bloomberg also reported that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster.

[I_M4_AU 7,889]

Ted Cruze tweeted this timeline recently. It seems like an investigation is in order.