Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Probably because anybody and everybody who has already looked into this found there’s nothing to see and we all know it’s a Trump canard. It’s like birtherism; it ain’t worth our time.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
It may well be that Hunter Biden's role should be examined further. But please, please, please learn more about what the prosecutor was and was not doing before posting. He was exactly doing the opposite of looking into Burisma.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Are you for real? Nobody is interested in what the Bidens might have done? What planet are you on?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Because as I have said over and over in many threads on this site, THEY ALL DO IT. Down deep, even those that claim some grandiose notion politicians are great, selfless servants of the public; we all realize they are all corrupt and use their power for personal gain. (BIDEN AND HUNTER SAY Hi!)
It's just that when Trump has someone stay at a hotel and his company makes money off it, they can't stand it because it's so out in the open. Biden's actions just show us I was right all along. They all do it....
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Calling gphin . Sounds like you have another interested party. Serious, there are a few of us beyond Trump who would like to see Biden taken down. Why did Trump just go to the head of the line and become the story here? He can not get out of his own way.
Could you cool your jets for a bit slownomo, this one belongs to gphin .
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?the ukraine had a prosecutor who was famously corrupt, infamously corrupt, and would not bring corruption cases. the U.S., along with a number of western european countries, were hitting themselves in their temples with ball peen hammers over this guy. finally biden (joe) put his foot down (in an action that neither party faulted) and said we aren't sending you jack diddly in aid if you don't replace this guy. so that guy got replaced.
now, one of the guys not getting investigated by the corrupt prosecutor was biden's son. what VP biden did was help force the ouster of the prosecutor who was not prosecuting his son, nor the firm that hired his son. that prosecutor was replaced by one who would take up legitimate prosecutions. this has been covered pretty extensively, and was covered in articles going back months and years, without objection by anyone (until rudy cooked this up and trump bought in).
if you can tell me to what venal end VP biden took the action he took, i'm all ears.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
There is interest. But it should be done fairly, with no political motivations, by a investigative body like the FBI.
Not because the US president is clearly leaning on a potentially corrupt Ukrainian politician for political gain.
Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Not because the US president is clearly leaning on a potentially corrupt Ukrainian politician for political gain.
Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
you have no clue slowman.. you really dont.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Guffaw]
[ In reply to ]
Guffaw wrote:
There is interest. But it should be done fairly, with no political motivations, by a investigative body like the FBI. Not because the US president is clearly leaning on a potentially corrupt Ukrainian politician for political gain.
There is interest among some only because Trump is scared of Biden and said there should be. In better times I'd hope the time of investigative bodies like the FBI would be reserved for potential crimes they had independent evidence had ever actually occurred.
"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Biden was quoted as saying he had no idea of his son's dealings in Ukraine........
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but
The old "but" rears it's head again.
I think there are a lot of people, including the President and Guliani who is more than interested in what the Biden's did and my guess is that interest will grow exponentially in the coming days.
There is also the little fact that we are talking about what a President is doing which should take precedent over what someone not currently in office did. The Biden's should and will be investigated fully but where would you put your energy if this story came out in the last few weeks and involves a sitting President?
The old "but" rears it's head again.
I think there are a lot of people, including the President and Guliani who is more than interested in what the Biden's did and my guess is that interest will grow exponentially in the coming days.
There is also the little fact that we are talking about what a President is doing which should take precedent over what someone not currently in office did. The Biden's should and will be investigated fully but where would you put your energy if this story came out in the last few weeks and involves a sitting President?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [TriFortMill]
[ In reply to ]
TriFortMill wrote:
Biden was quoted as saying he had no idea of his son's dealings in Ukraine........case closed then... surely he just didn't remember.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
Slowman wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
you have no clue slowman.. you really dont.
clue me in then.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
For the same reason no one got in any trouble at the DNC for tilting the primary for Hillary.
For the same reason on one at the DNC or CNN got in trouble for providing debate questions to the Clinton team.
For the same reason on one at the DNC or CNN got in trouble for providing debate questions to the Clinton team.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [spntrxi]
[ In reply to ]
spntrxi wrote:
Slowman wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
sadly I'm sure this is the "norm" in DC and probably more widespread then one would think... I'm barely interested enough to reply to this post.but you somehow screwed up the energy to reply anyway, to assert yet another false equivalency in the service of trump.
you have no clue slowman.. you really dont.
Can you clue us in, please?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Cavechild]
[ In reply to ]
Because Biden is old,
Because he lost a family member while in office.
Because he has no chance of winning after the other Dems cannibalize each other once again on stage.
Plus, Hunter Biden did Coke- what's not to like about that?
In February 2014, Biden was discharged from the navy reserve after testing positive for cocaine use. Biden claimed that he had ingested the cocaine involuntarily, but declined to contest the discharge before an appeals panel.
Because he lost a family member while in office.
Because he has no chance of winning after the other Dems cannibalize each other once again on stage.
Plus, Hunter Biden did Coke- what's not to like about that?
In February 2014, Biden was discharged from the navy reserve after testing positive for cocaine use. Biden claimed that he had ingested the cocaine involuntarily, but declined to contest the discharge before an appeals panel.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Cavechild]
[ In reply to ]
Cavechild wrote:
For the same reason no one got in any trouble at the DNC for tilting the primary for Hillary. For the same reason on one at the DNC or CNN got in trouble for providing debate questions to the Clinton team.
I am confused.
Is the answer because those things:
1) Don't involve the president
2) Aren't illegal
3) Are not relevant to the current discussion
4) Are brought up as part of a strategy to steer the conversation away from more pressing and serious examples of corruption.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member.
At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Velocibuddha]
[ In reply to ]
I am confused.
I guess you slept through 3 years of the Democrats screaming Russia Russia Russia,
I guess you slept through 3 years of the Democrats screaming Russia Russia Russia,
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it, it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
the Biden thang has been looked into by US and foreign gov'ments - and other organization. If Trump knows something he should spit it out and not simply speak in inuendos.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
From the WSJ last week:
“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said. Mr. Giuliani has suggested Mr. Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fight corruption had to do with an investigation of a gas company for which his son was a director. A Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son Hunter Biden.
Suffer Well.
Quote:
President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent. “He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said. Mr. Giuliani has suggested Mr. Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fight corruption had to do with an investigation of a gas company for which his son was a director. A Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son Hunter Biden.
Suffer Well.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh]
[ In reply to ]
jmh wrote:
From the WSJ last week: Quote:
President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.
“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” if his lawyer’s assertions that Mr. Biden acted improperly as vice president were true, one of the people said. Mr. Giuliani has suggested Mr. Biden’s pressure on Ukraine to fight corruption had to do with an investigation of a gas company for which his son was a director. A Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son Hunter Biden.
Do we really need a quote from WSJ now that we have the memo of the call?
From the Hill article:
But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”
This at least give legs to the Biden issue that Dan and others want to say is all over.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Trump is innocent!!!!
The fact that someone else might have been guilty of something proves that Trump is innocent.
Why are we talking about Trump?
Ted Bundy killed a whole bunch of people. The Democrats are ignoring it.
Trump has to be innocent.
The fact that someone else might have been guilty of something proves that Trump is innocent.
Why are we talking about Trump?
Ted Bundy killed a whole bunch of people. The Democrats are ignoring it.
Trump has to be innocent.
Last edited by:
Velocibuddha: Sep 25, 19 14:32
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Velocibuddha]
[ In reply to ]
Velocibuddha wrote:
Trump is innocent!!!! The fact that someone else might have been guilty of something proves that Trump is innocent.
Why are we talking about Trump?
Ted Bundy killed a whole bunch of people. The democrats are ignoring it.
Trump has to be innocent.
Check out the title of this thread. It may calm you down and give you some clarity.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
Same way that Shrub got his start... it’s whats wrong with America
Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting
“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting
“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it, it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs.
I am only trying to keep both sides civil while allowing pursuit to ground of the truth to the entire story. Your linked references and Ace's reference taken as a whole clears this matter in my feeble mind not a wit. And yes the news is old and not all that much.
Conspiracy theories can be confounding and I hope always to steer clear. This is what I see that doesn't help either side of this story. That there is reference to Washington connected lobbyists hired by Burisma, that there are denials by congress that said lobbyists played no role in correspondence and actions by congress about said country and energy policies, that Russia has been and is involved in Ukraine's energy matters, that involvement of ownership of said company is in Cyprus, that the debunking case is woefully lacking news, that energy players with ecology ministers is a potentially explosive mix and that the subject matter expert at CSIS did not have a warm and cozy feeling about it.
This is in no way a shut case. Nor is there evidence that it is an open case. It will nag Biden because there is video and audio evidence of his playing mafia don Joe. That's all. I am not convinced that Joe acted in a corrupt way or a lawful way in support of his son or even if he knew how his actions would affect his son and his son's company.
Trump's whataboutism play in no way absolves him of his own misdeeds taking up the matter with Zelensky.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Of course no one includes the Trump administration's DOJ and both houses of Congress under GOP control.
Why did they do fuckall during the 2 years of complete GOP control?
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [slownomo]
[ In reply to ]
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Why no interest? It is right in an AP article, you know the unbiased reporting that all the major newspapers reprint to inform us.
"Trump has sought to implicate Biden and his son in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son."
You see- Biden using his position to protect his son is just a conspiracy theory- no proof, no evidence, Gee nothing suspicious at all. So says the echo chamber.
Just ignore this little no evidence tidbit-
https://youtu.be/nR7uZZ6yTo4
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
Your linked references and Ace's reference taken as a whole clears this matter in my feeble mind not a wit.what you believe is your decision. don't rely on my "linked references." there are more than 100 daily newspapers with big circulations that go back at least 150 years. go to any of them. in fact, go to only those emanating from red states. i'll stand behind whatever it is they all (that is, what the large majority of them, if there is a large majority) choose to report, both in their newsrooms and in what the newspaper editorial staff (what the paper will stand behind) writes.
is that fair? because, the problem you have is one of trust. you don't know who to trust. i sympathize with that. so, forget lefty newspapers you don't trust. go to the altanta journal constitution, dallas morning news, houston chronicle, miami herald, st. louis dispatch, and so on. go to only red state papers of decent size. read what they say. don't believe me. figure out where you can go; where you can find sources you can trust.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
This is in no way a shut case. Nor is there evidence that it is an open case. It will nag Biden because there is video and audio evidence of his playing mafia don Joe. That's all. I am not convinced that Joe acted in a corrupt way or a lawful way in support of his son or even if he knew how his actions would affect his son and his son's company.
The part in bold is the most important part. People defending Biden are wasting their time. This isn't about truth. This is about politics which is all about perception. Biden's video looks bad. And, no, it doesn't matter that many things look bad for Trump. This is not a realm of absolutes, fairness, or apples to apples comparisons. Trump has been carrying enormous momentum with his base going all the way back to 2016. Can we really say that Biden has momentum with Democratic voters? Is ANY Democrat genuinely excited to vote for Biden?
Yay?... yay?...yay?
Elections are about perception and momentum. Biden effectively has to survive two elections and, TBH, I can't say he has any momentum. He feels like Jeb Bush right now "please clap." If it weren't for the Trump hate-vote and collective attempt at Nash equilibrium on the part of Democratic voters I don't know that Biden would be on anyone's map.
The risk here is that the Trump-Zelensky thing causes collateral damage to Biden sapping whatever momentum he had thus handing the nomination to Warren which is is probably less of a safe choice for the Democrats.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
Your linked references and Ace's reference taken as a whole clears this matter in my feeble mind not a wit.what you believe is your decision. don't rely on my "linked references." there are more than 100 daily newspapers with big circulations that go back at least 150 years. go to any of them. in fact, go to only those emanating from red states. i'll stand behind whatever it is they all (that is, what the large majority of them, if there is a large majority) choose to report, both in their newsrooms and in what the newspaper editorial staff (what the paper will stand behind) writes.
is that fair? because, the problem you have is one of trust. you don't know who to trust. i sympathize with that. so, forget lefty newspapers you don't trust. go to the altanta journal constitution, dallas morning news, houston chronicle, miami herald, st. louis dispatch, and so on. go to only red state papers of decent size. read what they say. don't believe me. figure out where you can go; where you can find sources you can trust.
Fair enough. I will pursue all "the debunking" news stories. As to trust, it is the WaPo and the LR. I have been around the block few times and I remember watching the Watergate hearings. My trust lies in following those that ask the tough questions. I then go with my read as to how responses are delivered to those tough questions. A news story that answers tough questions is to be trusted.
I hope to find a news source right left whatever who has done an in depth investigative look into the matter. I offer for example the election of doug Jones in Alabama. This was a direct result of the influence generated by a thorough, exhausting, very expensive and very professional journalistic investigation into allegations that may have been debunked before Bezos opened up his check book and paid for that effort. While many certainly cried bias of the Democracy dies in darkness WaPo, I had trust and faith in that news organization that this was a no shit legit story with teeth to attack all the miniscule debunkers.
I currently don't have that confidence in all sources reporting on this story. It is my wish that Bezos would open his wallet one more time for the Ukraine energy and Hunter Biden story. Sadly I don't see that happening.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [GreenPlease]
[ In reply to ]
GreenPlease wrote:
gofigure wrote:
This is in no way a shut case. Nor is there evidence that it is an open case. It will nag Biden because there is video and audio evidence of his playing mafia don Joe. That's all. I am not convinced that Joe acted in a corrupt way or a lawful way in support of his son or even if he knew how his actions would affect his son and his son's company.
The part in bold is the most important part. People defending Biden are wasting their time. This isn't about truth. This is about politics which is all about perception. Biden's video looks bad. And, no, it doesn't matter that many things look bad for Trump. This is not a realm of absolutes, fairness, or apples to apples comparisons. Trump has been carrying enormous momentum with his base going all the way back to 2016. Can we really say that Biden has momentum with Democratic voters? Is ANY Democrat genuinely excited to vote for Biden?
Yay?... yay?...yay?
Elections are about perception and momentum. Biden effectively has to survive two elections and, TBH, I can't say he has any momentum. He feels like Jeb Bush right now "please clap." If it weren't for the Trump hate-vote and collective attempt at Nash equilibrium on the part of Democratic voters I don't know that Biden would be on anyone's map.
The risk here is that the Trump-Zelensky thing causes collateral damage to Biden sapping whatever momentum he had thus handing the nomination to Warren which is is probably less of a safe choice for the Democrats.
It is certain to cause collateral damage to Biden. He is toast thanks to Donald's impeaching move. Good riddance to both. Game on. The only other candidate of death is communist Bernie.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
Continuing. Why didn't trump campaign team pay for oppo research to firm like rudy's or Fusion on Biden klan. Instead he leaned on a government which is a no no to most rational thinking folks. Oh that's right he worked with Russia before.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [tyrod1]
[ In reply to ]
tyrod1 wrote:
Continuing. Why didn't trump campaign team pay for oppo research to firm like rudy's or Fusion on Biden klan. Instead he leaned on a government which is a no no to most rational thinking folks. Oh that's right he worked with Russia before.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.
Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gphin305]
[ In reply to ]
gphin305 wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.
Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.
you've convinced me. i'm not going to vote for biden for president if appears on the ballot. hunter biden that is. i do think that the families of candidates are windows into the parents. it's one problem i have with trump and a problem i had with sarah palin. but the cheneys, the romneys, the bushes, nothing i can really fault there. and obama, you couldn't do any better. biden, i see nothing but a stellar resume there. except for hunter, which might be the bad apple.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [getcereal]
[ In reply to ]
getcereal wrote:
slownomo wrote:
Trump is a monumental cad, and probably crossed lines with the Ukrainian conversation, but the there seems to be zero interest in what also looks to be obvious related misdoings of the Bidens. Hunter is an oil and gas expert who deserves $50K a month for his service? Biden didn't use his position and threaten to withhold 1 bil if a prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn't fired? Why is no one questioning if there may have actually been something for Trump to be concerned about?Why no interest? It is right in an AP article, you know the unbiased reporting that all the major newspapers reprint to inform us.
"Trump has sought to implicate Biden and his son in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son."
You see- Biden using his position to protect his son is just a conspiracy theory- no proof, no evidence, Gee nothing suspicious at all. So says the echo chamber.
Just ignore this little no evidence tidbit-
https://youtu.be/nR7uZZ6yTo4
Nice troll. Seriously.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
gphin305 wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.
Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.
you've convinced me. i'm not going to vote for biden for president if appears on the ballot. hunter biden that is. i do think that the families of candidates are windows into the parents. it's one problem i have with trump and a problem i had with sarah palin. but the cheneys, the romneys, the bushes, nothing i can really fault there. and obama, you couldn't do any better. biden, i see nothing but a stellar resume there. except for hunter, which might be the bad apple.
You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.
https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gphin305]
[ In reply to ]
gphin305 wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gphin305 wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
when there's no moral floor under which a propagandist won't go, and his sources are forced to recant on the very subject on which he's reporting, and his own colleagues are nauseated by him, why is the burden on me to believe him? it would be a lot easier for you to just find me one reputable source.
Is Hunter a bad apple you ask? Somehow I think you are smarter than you are leading us to believe with this question. Lets see......cocaine use in college.....gets kicked out of Navy for cocaine use one month after joining.....his wife accuses him of wasting their money on prostitutes, strip clubs, etc.......police find cocaine in a rental car after a crash....he leaves his wife and starts shacking up with his dead brothers widow......he announces they are splitting the day his father announces his candidacy.......a month later he gets married to a woman he has known for ten days. Yet there he his flying on Air Force 2 to Ukraine and China with his father and landing multi million $ deals in areas where he has no expertise. Bad apple? Guess it depends on your standards.
you've convinced me. i'm not going to vote for biden for president if appears on the ballot. hunter biden that is. i do think that the families of candidates are windows into the parents. it's one problem i have with trump and a problem i had with sarah palin. but the cheneys, the romneys, the bushes, nothing i can really fault there. and obama, you couldn't do any better. biden, i see nothing but a stellar resume there. except for hunter, which might be the bad apple.
You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.
https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407
as far as i know, joe has been married twice. his first wife and his daughter died in an auto accident. hunter and beau were also in the car and were injured. he eventually remarried. beau grew up to be an attorney and a veteran of a foreign war, a judge advocate, and died of cancer. he and his second wife have been married for 40 or 45 years. his daughter from, i think, his second marriage, worked in legal advocacy if i remember right. if i were him i'd be quite proud of the family man i'd tried to be. i would call that a pretty successful family, notwithstanding the scrutiny that his remaining son might righteously invite. you go ahead and slime his family if you want.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gphin305]
[ In reply to ]
gphin305 wrote:
You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.
https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407
Why no ellipses? Recent grammar lessons from the minders?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [eb]
[ In reply to ]
eb wrote:
gphin305 wrote:
You really think Joe had nothing to do with his son making millions for doing who knows what in industries/ventures he knew nothing about? You think Hunter invited himself on Air Force 2? Here, maybe this article will help. Note his brother James dealings. No apparent breaking the law here but you should get the picture with Joe and his family dealings. Some people might disagree with your "stellar resume" opinion. You think a guy who now can't put two sentences together and talks about "record players" really has a chance? If he and Trump get on a debate stage together, that "stellar resume" is going to be torn to shreds.
https://www.politico.com/...2020-campaign-227407
Why no ellipses? Recent grammar lessons from the minders?
Plus, a trump bot insinuating that another candidate’s family might be slimy is just pure fuckin gold. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
I think we should reopen the Biden investigation only after they reopen Begazi and Hillary’s emails. Also, nothing should be done on climate change until it’s been looked into.
The GOP is incredibly good at stonewalling and diverting attention. This is the same party that focused the 2004 election on John Kerry’s service record. This is the same group of people who argue that we haven’t found the missing link.
It’ll happen again.
There’s a good chance it’ll work again.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
The GOP is incredibly good at stonewalling and diverting attention. This is the same party that focused the 2004 election on John Kerry’s service record. This is the same group of people who argue that we haven’t found the missing link.
It’ll happen again.
There’s a good chance it’ll work again.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [chriskal]
[ In reply to ]
chriskal wrote:
Plus, a trump bot insinuating that another candidate’s family might be slimy is just pure fuckin gold. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
chatbot305 is the best bot around.
Also...
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
https://www.justsecurity.org/...ens-and-ukrainegate/
Interesting timeline of events posted here. The timeline contains references to several of Solomon's articles in the Hill, including the one mentioned above.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [phishtales]
[ In reply to ]
phishtales wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
https://www.justsecurity.org/...ens-and-ukrainegate/
Interesting timeline of events posted here. The timeline contains references to several of Solomon's articles in the Hill, including the one mentioned above.
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday and claims he is going to have a huge dump of documents this afternoon that will show Biden was in it up to his eyeballs on this. Claims it will show the truth of what happened with documents to back it up. We shall see.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday ....Do you listen to Mark Levin often? Uh oh ;).
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [oldandslow]
[ In reply to ]
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday ....
Do you listen to Mark Levin often? Uh oh ;).
Only when Michael Savage is in a commercial.:)
Mainly when the sports talk station is on commercial is when Levin gets turned on. OR when big political news is happening. I used to listen to Air America too back in the day but I guess no one else did.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
You can still listen to Randy Rhodes here in the Bay Area. I was stuck in traffic for 1 hour on Tuesday, and in a fit of self-destructive madness alternated between Levin and Rhodes. My only takeaway: 1.) The country is basically dead, and 2.) the electorate richly deserves it for patronizing and exalting such relentless propagandists for decades.
(Edit: I guess that she just started up again in some markets. Talk radio is of course dominated by Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/Levine)
(Edit: I guess that she just started up again in some markets. Talk radio is of course dominated by Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/Levine)
Last edited by:
oldandslow: Sep 26, 19 12:42
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday and claims he is going to have a huge dump of documents this afternoon that will show Biden was in it up to his eyeballs on this. Claims it will show the truth of what happened with documents to back it up. We shall see.
This (and more) from a "least biased" rated source:
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed -- and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.
But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.
They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.
https://www.rferl.org/...shokin/30181445.html
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Kay Serrar wrote:
ACE wrote:
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday and claims he is going to have a huge dump of documents this afternoon that will show Biden was in it up to his eyeballs on this. Claims it will show the truth of what happened with documents to back it up. We shall see.
This (and more) from a "least biased" rated source:
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed -- and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.
But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.
They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.
https://www.rferl.org/...shokin/30181445.html
Interesting situation for sure.
In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [phishtales]
[ In reply to ]
phishtales wrote:
https://www.justsecurity.org/...ens-and-ukrainegate/
Interesting timeline of events posted here. The timeline contains references to several of Solomon's articles in the Hill, including the one mentioned above.
Thank you for the link. I would like to say it resolves in my mind all that is corrupt in Ukraine and how that plays into what Hunter did and what Joe did, but it only helps. Today's WaPo has an article by Paul Sonne, Michael Birnbaum, Rosalind S Helderman and Josh Dawsey (sorry but am still unable to provide links) that also helps but does not resolve. The bulk of this article was from an interview with Giuliani. This article leads one to more questions, more people to hear from with more sorting through changing stories. Therein why resolution still escapes my feeble mind.
The bottom line so far for me still remains that Ukraine was corrupt and if one played there and was successful then one could not escape that taint. The continual changing of prosecutors, their changing stories and the addled investigative mind of Giuliani, even with the help of the timeline of the above link, does not allow for the easy extraction of the complete truth. I do not think the meat of this story has been cut and dried yet. The carcass is still hanging and the flies are near. Because there remains the Russia vs the West aspect here, Ukraine officials who know the truth can't help but moisten their index finger and place it above their heads to see which direction the wind is blowing. The full and true story is out there somewhere in the wind.
Outside of that true and complete story here, front and center are Hunter and his boys making some easy coin and Joe playing the big man boaster in front of the camera. Sad as it is, that is what Johnny lunch box(?? ) will take away.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
ACE wrote:
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday and claims he is going to have a huge dump of documents this afternoon that will show Biden was in it up to his eyeballs on this. Claims it will show the truth of what happened with documents to back it up. We shall see.
This (and more) from a "least biased" rated source:
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed -- and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.
But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.
They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.
https://www.rferl.org/...shokin/30181445.html
Interesting situation for sure.
In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
So we should believe the man who has been near universally accused of widespread corruption by the IMF, the EU, the UK, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian reform advocates.
Considering the IMF's $1.8bn loan basically disappeared, it was hardly surprising the US wanted people like Shokin out before giving Ukraine another $1bn.
...thanks to investigative work by the Ukrainian anticorruption watchdog group Nashi Groshi (“Our Money”), we can actually watch the process by which the gigantic sum of $1.8 billion was smoothly maneuvered offshore, in the first instance to PrivatBank accounts in Cyprus, and thence into accounts in Belize, the British Virgin Islands, and other outposts of the international financial galaxy.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
phishtales wrote:
https://www.justsecurity.org/...ens-and-ukrainegate/
Interesting timeline of events posted here. The timeline contains references to several of Solomon's articles in the Hill, including the one mentioned above.
Thank you for the link. I would like to say it resolves in my mind all that is corrupt in Ukraine and how that plays into what Hunter did and what Joe did, but it only helps. Today's WaPo has an article by Paul Sonne, Michael Birnbaum, Rosalind S Helderman and Josh Dawsey (sorry but am still unable to provide links) that also helps but does not resolve. The bulk of this article was from an interview with Giuliani. This article leads one to more questions, more people to hear from with more sorting through changing stories. Therein why resolution still escapes my feeble mind.
The bottom line so far for me still remains that Ukraine was corrupt and if one played there and was successful then one could not escape that taint. The continual changing of prosecutors, their changing stories and the addled investigative mind of Giuliani, even with the help of the timeline of the above link, does not allow for the easy extraction of the complete truth. I do not think the meat of this story has been cut and dried yet. The carcass is still hanging and the flies are near. Because there remains the Russia vs the West aspect here, Ukraine officials who know the truth can't help but moisten their index finger and place it above their heads to see which direction the wind is blowing. The full and true story is out there somewhere in the wind.
Outside of that true and complete story here, front and center are Hunter and his boys making some easy coin and Joe playing the big man boaster in front of the camera. Sad as it is, that is what Johnny lunch box(?? ) will take away.
Working class people are smarter than you appear to think they are.
You are also skipping over the fact that Trump hired his campaign manager straight from these exact corrupt Ukrainian politicians' staff. If Trump wants to paint all people who did work in the Ukraine as hopelessly corrupt he's got a chicken of his own heading home.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
. Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
It's not nonsense. But the Biden case is missing what'd I'd call "credible insider information." The Hill article you posted is kind of weird, Solomon keeps referring to interviews he had, but doesn't give us the interview, just a few quotations. He's being coy for some reason.
In any case two wrong are OK with me. Tribal politics shouldn't be a zero sum game. Let's end the careers of Joe and Donald, clean things up a bit.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [trail]
[ In reply to ]
trail wrote:
ACE wrote:
. Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
It's not nonsense. But the Biden case is missing what'd I'd call "credible insider information." The Hill article you posted is kind of weird, Solomon keeps referring to interviews he had, but doesn't give us the interview, just a few quotations. He's being coy for some reason.
In any case two wrong are OK with me. Tribal politics shouldn't be a zero sum game. Let's end the careers of Joe and Donald, clean things up a bit.
It is important to note that the first paragraph oh John Soloman's wiki page ends with, "While he has won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism,[3][4] he has also been accused of magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy."
So when he says he is going to drop some documents it is best to take that with a grain of salt.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Kay Serrar wrote:
ACE wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
ACE wrote:
Solomon was on with Mark Levin yesterday and claims he is going to have a huge dump of documents this afternoon that will show Biden was in it up to his eyeballs on this. Claims it will show the truth of what happened with documents to back it up. We shall see.
This (and more) from a "least biased" rated source:
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed -- and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.
But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.
They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.
https://www.rferl.org/...shokin/30181445.html
Interesting situation for sure.
In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
So we should believe the man who has been near universally accused of widespread corruption by the IMF, the EU, the UK, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian reform advocates.
Considering the IMF's $1.8bn loan basically disappeared, it was hardly surprising the US wanted people like Shokin out before giving Ukraine another $1bn.
...thanks to investigative work by the Ukrainian anticorruption watchdog group Nashi Groshi (“Our Money”), we can actually watch the process by which the gigantic sum of $1.8 billion was smoothly maneuvered offshore, in the first instance to PrivatBank accounts in Cyprus, and thence into accounts in Belize, the British Virgin Islands, and other outposts of the international financial galaxy.
I like to say it creates..."A fact issue" Simply suggesting the Biden did nothing wrong side of the aisle may need to look a little closer.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
I don't know if either of the Bidens did anything improper, swampy or illegal. But Joe Biden publicly calling for Shokin to be fired before another $1bn in aid money disappeared to Panamanian or Cypriot bank accounts seems reasonable. That is nothing like the equivalent to what Trump did on that phone call.
As gofigure said, getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine is tough, but it seems most independent and more trustworthy sources don't support the Giuliani narrative. But hey, they could all be wrong...
As gofigure said, getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine is tough, but it seems most independent and more trustworthy sources don't support the Giuliani narrative. But hey, they could all be wrong...
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [j p o]
[ In reply to ]
I hope you are right with the capacity of the working people to wade through fake and truthful news to sort right from wrong. I just know in my fuddled mind I see Hunter and Joe as players in Ukraine, one with coin and one running for president. I also see that Manafort is a jailbird for having played in the corrupt game of Ukraine politics.
I am trying not to skip over. I haven't painted Joe's or Hunter's action as being part of the corrupt or just doing their jobs. I am Just trying to confirm the debunking news that proves them as just doing their jobs and then move on. Confirmation not yet made. my search continues.
The inherent bugaboo as I see it and as I read in today's WaPo piece is that anything governmental in Ukraine up until Zelensky was perniciously corrupt. Because they were all corrupt, they continue to shift sides and change stories depending on who they are talking to and when they talked. Some folks have yet to tell their stories. For sure Giuliani is not one of them.
I am trying not to skip over. I haven't painted Joe's or Hunter's action as being part of the corrupt or just doing their jobs. I am Just trying to confirm the debunking news that proves them as just doing their jobs and then move on. Confirmation not yet made. my search continues.
The inherent bugaboo as I see it and as I read in today's WaPo piece is that anything governmental in Ukraine up until Zelensky was perniciously corrupt. Because they were all corrupt, they continue to shift sides and change stories depending on who they are talking to and when they talked. Some folks have yet to tell their stories. For sure Giuliani is not one of them.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
I hope you are right with the capacity of the working people to wade through fake and truthful news to sort right from wrong. I just know in my fuddled mind I see Hunter and Joe as players in Ukraine, one with coin and one running for president. I also see that Manafort is a jailbird for having played in the corrupt game of Ukraine politics. I am trying not to skip over. I haven't painted Joe's or Hunter's action as being part of the corrupt or just doing their jobs. I am Just trying to confirm the debunking news that proves them as just doing their jobs and then move on. Confirmation not yet made. my search continues.
The inherent bugaboo as I see it and as I read in today's WaPo piece is that anything governmental in Ukraine up until Zelensky was perniciously corrupt. Because they were all corrupt, they continue to shift sides and change stories depending on who they are talking to and when they talked. Some folks have yet to tell their stories. For sure Giuliani is not one of them.
A few random thoughts on this.
I have no idea what Hunter was up to. I don't know if he was peddling influence, but I would bet the people who hired him at least hoped he had influence. You see a lot of politicians' relatives get hired in cases like this. And the people hiring are always hoping they have an in.
I don't think Joe did anything wrong. This was the official government policy, a policy shared by other countries. And I haven't see anything that would make me think at all that this was Joe's idea.
Ukrainian politics is corrupt. The Manafort hire was suspect from the start. I can't pretend Hunter is certainly clean if my first thought when Trump hired Manafort was, "wow, out of the Ukrainian mess?"
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Kay Serrar wrote:
I don't know if either of the Bidens did anything improper, swampy or illegal. But Joe Biden publicly calling for Shokin to be fired before another $1bn in aid money disappeared to Panamanian or Cypriot bank accounts seems reasonable. That is nothing like the equivalent to what Trump did on that phone call. As gofigure said, getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine is tough, but it seems most independent and more trustworthy sources don't support the Giuliani narrative. But hey, they could all be wrong...
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe, regardless of Slowman's insistence that all that is John Soloman is tainted and unreliable. If the document was a fake you would hear screaming from the rooftops. As a former prosecutor, I'd doubt that Shokin would purger himself to the extent this document suggests, if all the fake news media is telling the truth and he's lying. The delusion that this second tier official could steal the $1billion away from all the other crooks in the Ukrainian government, and THIS is why Biden had to get him fired rings pretty damn hollow. The fact that Biden would go to the mat to get this one 2nd tier official fired simply stinks to high heaven. You can dismiss Giuliani as a partisan protecting his client, but I would sure like to take him up on his boast that he has Shokin ready to come and testify before congress that he got a hatchet job by Biden. I'd sure like to see a Muller style investigation with 40 FBI agents, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and 500 witnesses putting a microscope up Biden's ass.
Even though he would be the second "dream candidate" for the Orange One to run against.
Every night that I run, the thought crosses my mind that there's no way in hell I'll still be running a month from now.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jsquared]
[ In reply to ]
Given Shokin was regarded as being corrupt by the UK, the EU, the IMF and all US officials (including Republicans), I would go for option 2. All other credible sources suggest he is lying. But I have seen Hannity support the narrative you espouse, so there’s that.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jsquared]
[ In reply to ]
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this. Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
First I must ask, did you read the sworn statement in post #59? I did, pretty much in it's entirety, it's compelling and trumps everything else until there's some actual evidence proving he is lying. If you haven't read it I'm hard pressed to take your position seriously that he is lying. If you're lazy, you can start at section 7 or so. Seems like I read somewhere he had only been on the job 14 months, but had previously held the position in the past, this doesn't qualify as "years". If this is true, funny that they would bring him back. As for your "documents", it looks like another "investigative news" story based off the same propaganda being pushed for the last 3 years. So maybe he's as dirty as they say, this neither excuse's, or explains Biden's actions. Biden's actions still stink to high heaven. You might one day prove Shokin to be dirty, but I can promise you Biden is dirtier. Biden clearly had a personal stake in getting this guy out of office and Shokin's story is the only one that makes sense. I would hope you would have at least seen Biden's video where he bragged about getting the guy fired to the whole world. This was a foreign policy embarrassment beyond anything I remember in the last 40 years and alone should preclude him from ever becoming POTUS. If ever something demanded an investigation, this was it.
Every night that I run, the thought crosses my mind that there's no way in hell I'll still be running a month from now.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jsquared]
[ In reply to ]
jsquared wrote:
chaparral wrote:
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
First I must ask, did you read the sworn statement in post #59? I did, pretty much in it's entirety, it's compelling and trumps everything else until there's some actual evidence proving he is lying. If you haven't read it I'm hard pressed to take your position seriously that he is lying. If you're lazy, you can start at section 7 or so. Seems like I read somewhere he had only been on the job 14 months, but had previously held the position in the past, this doesn't qualify as "years". If this is true, funny that they would bring him back. As for your "documents", it looks like another "investigative news" story based off the same propaganda being pushed for the last 3 years. So maybe he's as dirty as they say, this neither excuse's, or explains Biden's actions. Biden's actions still stink to high heaven. You might one day prove Shokin to be dirty, but I can promise you Biden is dirtier. Biden clearly had a personal stake in getting this guy out of office and Shokin's story is the only one that makes sense. I would hope you would have at least seen Biden's video where he bragged about getting the guy fired to the whole world. This was a foreign policy embarrassment beyond anything I remember in the last 40 years and alone should preclude him from ever becoming POTUS. If ever something demanded an investigation, this was it.
Are you suggesting that it was Biden's idea to push the Ukraine to fire Shokin or that he went rogue and did this on his own? Because that is the only way this made-up misdirection works. If it was the position of the EU and the US government to force Shokin out in order to get further aid, then Biden is just working to further US interests, not his own or his son's. Which is in stark contrast to the people pushing this narative.
In order for the known corrupt guy to be believed, we have to assume a whole host of other people have been lying about him.
Because a lot of people, who aren't trying desperately to cover their own asses, say something very similar to this:
"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Washington Post for a July article. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jsquared]
[ In reply to ]
jsquared wrote:
chaparral wrote:
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
First I must ask, did you read the sworn statement in post #59? I did, pretty much in it's entirety, it's compelling and trumps everything else until there's some actual evidence proving he is lying. If you haven't read it I'm hard pressed to take your position seriously that he is lying. If you're lazy, you can start at section 7 or so. Seems like I read somewhere he had only been on the job 14 months, but had previously held the position in the past, this doesn't qualify as "years". If this is true, funny that they would bring him back. As for your "documents", it looks like another "investigative news" story based off the same propaganda being pushed for the last 3 years. So maybe he's as dirty as they say, this neither excuse's, or explains Biden's actions. Biden's actions still stink to high heaven. You might one day prove Shokin to be dirty, but I can promise you Biden is dirtier. Biden clearly had a personal stake in getting this guy out of office and Shokin's story is the only one that makes sense. I would hope you would have at least seen Biden's video where he bragged about getting the guy fired to the whole world. This was a foreign policy embarrassment beyond anything I remember in the last 40 years and alone should preclude him from ever becoming POTUS. If ever something demanded an investigation, this was it.
Yes, I have read it. It is a bunch of nonsense to defend Dmitry Firtash. If you want evidence that he is dirty, you only need to look up Dmitry Firtash.
He is as dirty as they think. Sorry it does not fit your right wing fever dream.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [j p o]
[ In reply to ]
j p o wrote:
jsquared wrote:
chaparral wrote:
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
First I must ask, did you read the sworn statement in post #59? I did, pretty much in it's entirety, it's compelling and trumps everything else until there's some actual evidence proving he is lying. If you haven't read it I'm hard pressed to take your position seriously that he is lying. If you're lazy, you can start at section 7 or so. Seems like I read somewhere he had only been on the job 14 months, but had previously held the position in the past, this doesn't qualify as "years". If this is true, funny that they would bring him back. As for your "documents", it looks like another "investigative news" story based off the same propaganda being pushed for the last 3 years. So maybe he's as dirty as they say, this neither excuse's, or explains Biden's actions. Biden's actions still stink to high heaven. You might one day prove Shokin to be dirty, but I can promise you Biden is dirtier. Biden clearly had a personal stake in getting this guy out of office and Shokin's story is the only one that makes sense. I would hope you would have at least seen Biden's video where he bragged about getting the guy fired to the whole world. This was a foreign policy embarrassment beyond anything I remember in the last 40 years and alone should preclude him from ever becoming POTUS. If ever something demanded an investigation, this was it.
Are you suggesting that it was Biden's idea to push the Ukraine to fire Shokin or that he went rogue and did this on his own? Because that is the only way this made-up misdirection works. If it was the position of the EU and the US government to force Shokin out in order to get further aid, then Biden is just working to further US interests, not his own or his son's. Which is in stark contrast to the people pushing this narative.
In order for the known corrupt guy to be believed, we have to assume a whole host of other people have been lying about him.
Because a lot of people, who aren't trying desperately to cover their own asses, say something very similar to this:
"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Washington Post for a July article. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."
Every night that I run, the thought crosses my mind that there's no way in hell I'll still be running a month from now.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [j p o]
[ In reply to ]
j p o wrote:
jsquared wrote:
chaparral wrote:
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
First I must ask, did you read the sworn statement in post #59? I did, pretty much in it's entirety, it's compelling and trumps everything else until there's some actual evidence proving he is lying. If you haven't read it I'm hard pressed to take your position seriously that he is lying. If you're lazy, you can start at section 7 or so. Seems like I read somewhere he had only been on the job 14 months, but had previously held the position in the past, this doesn't qualify as "years". If this is true, funny that they would bring him back. As for your "documents", it looks like another "investigative news" story based off the same propaganda being pushed for the last 3 years. So maybe he's as dirty as they say, this neither excuse's, or explains Biden's actions. Biden's actions still stink to high heaven. You might one day prove Shokin to be dirty, but I can promise you Biden is dirtier. Biden clearly had a personal stake in getting this guy out of office and Shokin's story is the only one that makes sense. I would hope you would have at least seen Biden's video where he bragged about getting the guy fired to the whole world. This was a foreign policy embarrassment beyond anything I remember in the last 40 years and alone should preclude him from ever becoming POTUS. If ever something demanded an investigation, this was it.
Are you suggesting that it was Biden's idea to push the Ukraine to fire Shokin or that he went rogue and did this on his own? Because that is the only way this made-up misdirection works. If it was the position of the EU and the US government to force Shokin out in order to get further aid, then Biden is just working to further US interests, not his own or his son's. Which is in stark contrast to the people pushing this narative.
In order for the known corrupt guy to be believed, we have to assume a whole host of other people have been lying about him.
Because a lot of people, who aren't trying desperately to cover their own asses, say something very similar to this:
"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Washington Post for a July article. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."
so that would mean that the next prosecutor would certainly do an investigation? Lots going on there, with Ukraine actively trying to help the Obama/Biden - Clinton side in the 16 election https://www.politico.com/...rump-backfire-233446
and recent info coming out indicating the Biden team hurried to meet with the new prosecutor.
https://thehill.com/....XY02ewYDEV8.twitter
Much more info from the right that does not get brought to these discussions, so there really was lots going on, and it's hard to know what to believe if you try to take it all in.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
dave_w wrote:
j p o wrote:
jsquared wrote:
chaparral wrote:
jsquared wrote:
So much doesn't smell right about this.
Having read the Shokin testimony where he flatly states he was fired because he refused to end the Barista investigation, and flatly states the investigation was active and ongoing, I have to conclude that either: 1: the document is a fake, 2: Shokin is lying outright, under oath, or 3: he's telling the truth. I find the first two extraordinarily difficult to believe,
Wait, you don't think that Shokin is lying? The notorious corrupt prosecutor? You know there are documents that show that Shokin had made the investigation dormant years before Biden got involved. This is not hard. Shokin was corrupt and not prosecuting any of the oligarchs. Some prosecutors under him were caught with a suspiciously large amount of diamonds and cash, he fired anyone that investigated them.
It was years of pressure against Shokin, starting with people in Ukraine to get him fired.
Don't believe a liar like Shokin, because all the evidence points to him being a liar.
First I must ask, did you read the sworn statement in post #59? I did, pretty much in it's entirety, it's compelling and trumps everything else until there's some actual evidence proving he is lying. If you haven't read it I'm hard pressed to take your position seriously that he is lying. If you're lazy, you can start at section 7 or so. Seems like I read somewhere he had only been on the job 14 months, but had previously held the position in the past, this doesn't qualify as "years". If this is true, funny that they would bring him back. As for your "documents", it looks like another "investigative news" story based off the same propaganda being pushed for the last 3 years. So maybe he's as dirty as they say, this neither excuse's, or explains Biden's actions. Biden's actions still stink to high heaven. You might one day prove Shokin to be dirty, but I can promise you Biden is dirtier. Biden clearly had a personal stake in getting this guy out of office and Shokin's story is the only one that makes sense. I would hope you would have at least seen Biden's video where he bragged about getting the guy fired to the whole world. This was a foreign policy embarrassment beyond anything I remember in the last 40 years and alone should preclude him from ever becoming POTUS. If ever something demanded an investigation, this was it.
Are you suggesting that it was Biden's idea to push the Ukraine to fire Shokin or that he went rogue and did this on his own? Because that is the only way this made-up misdirection works. If it was the position of the EU and the US government to force Shokin out in order to get further aid, then Biden is just working to further US interests, not his own or his son's. Which is in stark contrast to the people pushing this narative.
In order for the known corrupt guy to be believed, we have to assume a whole host of other people have been lying about him.
Because a lot of people, who aren't trying desperately to cover their own asses, say something very similar to this:
"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Washington Post for a July article. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."
-
so that would mean that the next prosecutor would certainly do an investigation? Lots going on there, with Ukraine actively trying to help the Obama/Biden - Clinton side in the 16 election https://www.politico.com/...rump-backfire-233446
and recent info coming out indicating the Biden team hurried to meet with the new prosecutor.
https://thehill.com/....XY02ewYDEV8.twitter
Much more info from the right that does not get brought to these discussions, so there really was lots going on, and it's hard to know what to believe if you try to take it all in.
Every night that I run, the thought crosses my mind that there's no way in hell I'll still be running a month from now.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it, it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs.
Two weeks on and I am ready now to accept the following. Joe Biden did not act corruptly. His actions were in concert with stated US positions and consistent with Britain and the EU. It was in support of pro western influence and anti Russia influence effort for business there. The special prosecutors (the Biden demanded ousted one, his predecessor and his successor) in question all have been corrupt and all have told shifting storylines. The current one is expected to assess past files on Burisma and act without influence of corruption.
Hunter Biden has played his last name well as measured by his bank account. His father's image has been rightly sullied as a result of inarguable interest conflict in Ukraine and may just cost him the presidency.
Kryptonite was Ukraine's major export.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
gofigure wrote:
Two weeks on and I am ready now to accept the following. Joe Biden did not act corruptly. His actions were in concert with stated US positions and consistent with Britain and the EU. It was in support of pro western influence and anti Russia influence effort for business there. The special prosecutors (the Biden demanded ousted one, his predecessor and his successor) in question all have been corrupt and all have told shifting storylines. The current one is expected to assess past files on Burisma and act without influence of corruption. Hunter Biden has played his last name well as measured by his bank account. His father's image has been rightly sullied as a result of inarguable interest conflict in Ukraine and may just cost him the presidency.
Kryptonite was Ukraine's major export.
I'm cool with that. But what rich person or politician doesn't play the name-drop and conflict of interest game? Meaning, they're all not electable.
It's just the same thing that they do with any topic.......spin who the victim or perp is and repeat until the dittoheads repeat also.
They do it with rape, clearly she dressed the wrong way or was drunk or got herself into that situation. They do it with a black person shot in the back (or running naked), clearly we should ignore this and focus on black people shooting each other instead. They do it with topics about alt-lifestyles.......clearly the victim is the white Christian male and his family being persecuted. They do it with the impeachment.......instead of deny and shut up (like others usually do), they have to investigate the investigators and competition to divert.
It's the whole Pharisee, spec in your eye log in mine, victim blaming mentality that drives me nuts.
It'd be one thing if you just deny it or just claim it wasn't illegal what T did. It's another totally to play the victim blame game. It makes you look childish and in my eyes actually hurts their credibility in the whole mess.
They'd be more credible shutting up, lawyering up, and making denials. It isn't a time to play chicken with pandering to the base.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [burnthesheep]
[ In reply to ]
burnthesheep wrote:
gofigure wrote:
Two weeks on and I am ready now to accept the following. Joe Biden did not act corruptly. His actions were in concert with stated US positions and consistent with Britain and the EU. It was in support of pro western influence and anti Russia influence effort for business there. The special prosecutors (the Biden demanded ousted one, his predecessor and his successor) in question all have been corrupt and all have told shifting storylines. The current one is expected to assess past files on Burisma and act without influence of corruption. Hunter Biden has played his last name well as measured by his bank account. His father's image has been rightly sullied as a result of inarguable interest conflict in Ukraine and may just cost him the presidency.
Kryptonite was Ukraine's major export.
I'm cool with that. But what rich person or politician doesn't play the name-drop and conflict of interest game? Meaning, they're all not electable.
It's just the same thing that they do with any topic.......spin who the victim or perp is and repeat until the dittoheads repeat also.
They do it with rape, clearly she dressed the wrong way or was drunk or got herself into that situation. They do it with a black person shot in the back (or running naked), clearly we should ignore this and focus on black people shooting each other instead. They do it with topics about alt-lifestyles.......clearly the victim is the white Christian male and his family being persecuted. They do it with the impeachment.......instead of deny and shut up (like others usually do), they have to investigate the investigators and competition to divert.
It's the whole Pharisee, spec in your eye log in mine, victim blaming mentality that drives me nuts.
It'd be one thing if you just deny it or just claim it wasn't illegal what T did. It's another totally to play the victim blame game. It makes you look childish and in my eyes actually hurts their credibility in the whole mess.
They'd be more credible shutting up, lawyering up, and making denials. It isn't a time to play chicken with pandering to the base.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
gofigure wrote:
To your point and to Kay's point. Corruption at the core or periphery of all or any transactions that involve governments is a tough nut worldwide and it has been that way for all of recorded history. The current leader of Ukraine ran on a specific anti-corruption campaign. How does Biden's old energy company look now? Has the new prosecutor hired by the new president opened up any old files for review and found nothing? Was this company a player in Ukraine playing by the old rules of corruption with the old corrupt prosecutor turning a blind eye and open palm? Was it a venal Joe Biden getting the bad guy fired? No not venal, but he did foolishly involve himself personally in trumplike fashion. Does anyone really know the full story of energy contracts in Ukraine? Was this a Hit Job by our president on a foe? No doubt! If the new guy in Ukraine is worth his salt, maybe that stupid impeachable move by Trump will have not been needed. The citizens of the Ukraine deserve "clean" energy without taint of corruption and without the subsidization through a higher gas bill of $50K per month paid out to an invaluable board member. At the foundation here is that if Hunter Biden's last name were Walsh, corruption in energy in Ukraine and in prosecutors offices would not be in the spotlight that it is now and without a curb. Maybe we will see an in depth investigation by 60 minutes to square it away.
here's what we do know, i think we can all agree, "all" referring to that subset of people for whom facts matter. trump really wants to see corruption stamped out. worldwide. he's made that very clear. just, with the proviso that the person doing the corrupting is a political opponent of his. in no other case am i aware of a corruption stand taken by trump. i am however aware of a number of cases were corruption by a foreign actor has been overlooked.
the biden case has been reported. mind, this goes back 5 years. there was an optics problem at the time. and it wasn't reported on by only one news organization. VP biden's push to oust the corrupt prosecutor, shokin, didn't emanate from him. it rose thru the US embassy in kiev. obama appointed biden the point man for ukraine, and biden working to oust shokin was the big dog with juice energizing a problem animated by career state dept officers in kiev. biden's push to oust shokin occurred in 2016, and burisma (the gas company for which biden's son hunter worked) was not under any investigation.
media outside and inside ukraine points out that the biden scandal or case, what have you, has been debunked many times. but if you keep saying it it'll catch hold inside impressionable minds. is hunter a bad apple? i don't know. but VP biden's actions were contrary to what you'd want if your goal was to get rid of the specter of the prosecution of your son.
i'm open to hearing differently. but "differently" means evidence of corruption by VP biden, because right now there is zero evidence of it tho the case has been investigated already by a number of news orgs. i mean, why not investigate mike pence, if we're going to investigate VPs just for the heck of it?
https://thehill.com/...sed-probe-is-revived
you really should read this article before you start posting things like:
"the prosecutor wasn't even investigating Hunter Bidens' company" That appears to be completely false with a just a small amount of search on google fu.
According to this article, the prosecutor that Joe Biden had summarily fired in Ukraine was in fact planning on not only investiging the company paying Hunter 166K a month but also planned to personally questions Hunter Biden.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden may have in fact been doing the exact thing you suggest there is no evidence he was doing.
Perhaps this information will help shed some light on your position or you will brush it off as nonsense.
about the author of the story you cite, is this the john solomon whose own wikipedia page says, in the first paragraph: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." the one who quotes from lutsenko for this story, only for lutsenko to retract a key claim he made a couple of weeks after solomon wrote his piece? is this the john solomon whose inventions include the uranium one conspiracy theory, comprehensively debunked? is the the john solomon who was forced to give up his editor's position at The Hill by his own newsroom colleagues, who grew exasperated by his lack of rigor? and he now remains only as an OpEd writer? who has appeared on hannity dozens of times? who the columbia journalism review said, "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline?" or is this another john solomon?
So I guess you are going to take the "completely dismiss it" approach. I could have predicted that.
Looks like the “completely dismiss it” approach was the right approach to take. A learning experience for you maybe? Sources matter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...lasting-damage-hill/
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Since you brought this thread forward I was reminded of an AP story on 11 Nov about Ukraine and energy dealings and how a Rick Perry involved company was awarded lease rights for 50 years to tap oil and gas from Ukraine. All above board, nothing illegal but maybe icky, and although the winner did not submit highest bid they were deemed most experienced. How ironic is it that without the efforts by Joe Biden and the west back when to clean up some of the oligarch ownership and prosecutor corruption this bidding process may well not have happened. Wonder if Rick sent Joe a thank you?
Speaking of Mr Perry, how long will his low profile remain so? Was he not the one who prompted the orange one to call on the 25th of July? Am sure he might have an interesting take on affairs.
Speaking of Mr Perry, how long will his low profile remain so? Was he not the one who prompted the orange one to call on the 25th of July? Am sure he might have an interesting take on affairs.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
Perry is quiet because he’s refusing to testify.
ACE, any comment on Solomon’s now-discredited story? Guessing not...
ACE, any comment on Solomon’s now-discredited story? Guessing not...
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure]
[ In reply to ]
Kent also said there should be more investigating:
-"
During his testimony before the House on Wednesday, Kent reiterated his conviction that officials in Ukraine ought to be investigated to root out corruption related to Burisma.
“To summarize, we thought the [CEO of Burisma] had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had take an bribe to shut the case,” Kent said.
“Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?” asked Minority House Intelligence Committee Counsel Steve Castor.
“I think, since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe, and how much of it was paid,” Kent said.
"-
https://thefederalist.com/...ated-for-corruption/
-"
During his testimony before the House on Wednesday, Kent reiterated his conviction that officials in Ukraine ought to be investigated to root out corruption related to Burisma.
“To summarize, we thought the [CEO of Burisma] had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had take an bribe to shut the case,” Kent said.
“Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?” asked Minority House Intelligence Committee Counsel Steve Castor.
“I think, since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe, and how much of it was paid,” Kent said.
"-
https://thefederalist.com/...ated-for-corruption/
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Kay Serrar wrote:
Perry is quiet because he’s refusing to testify. ACE, any comment on Solomon’s now-discredited story? Guessing not...
Hey ACE, looks like Nunes still has faith in Solomon's story. Do you?
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh]
[ In reply to ]
Ugh, that doesn't look good for him (although the baby mama certainly looks decent ~ amusingly enough, kinda more like Trump's/Fox News' type...)
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh]
[ In reply to ]
Out of wedlock child makes news...in Arkansas?
“Read the transcript.”
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [sslothrop]
[ In reply to ]
sslothrop wrote:
Out of wedlock child makes news...in Arkansas?
Out of wedlock isn't the story here, its the denial of sexual relations.. Dude can't even own up to it.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh]
[ In reply to ]
And there was argument made that he had no drilling experience. His boys seem to have struck fertile territory. Just shows fake news is everywhere.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Uncle Arqyle]
[ In reply to ]
Uncle Arqyle wrote:
Out of wedlock isn't the story here, its the denial of sexual relations.. Dude can't even own up to it.Must avoid whataboutismmustavoidwhataboutismNOWHATABO....Trump still denies banging Stormy.
DAMMIT!!!
But you're dead wrong. Failing to take responsibility for the financial and other welfare of a child is far, far worse than who knows about sexual relations.
Trump, to his credit, seems to at least take financial care of his entire brood. (though seems distance otherwise to some of them).
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [trail]
[ In reply to ]
trail wrote:
Uncle Arqyle wrote:
Out of wedlock isn't the story here, its the denial of sexual relations.. Dude can't even own up to it.Must avoid whataboutismmustavoidwhataboutismNOWHATABO....Trump still denies banging Stormy.
DAMMIT!!!
But you're dead wrong. Failing to take responsibility for the financial and other welfare of a child is far, far worse than who knows about sexual relations.
Trump, to his credit, seems to at least take financial care of his entire brood. (though seems distance otherwise to some of them).
That's what I'm saying. He's a slime ball for not taking care of his child and is so arrogant he even denies having sex with the mother, which is even worse. having sex, resulting in a child and taking responsibility is one thing, but having sex, resulting in a child and saying you've never had sex with the woman is a whole other level.
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Uncle Arqyle]
[ In reply to ]
Can’t these dumb fuckers (Harbinger...see what I did there...that’s a play on words) figure out how to get laid and not get the woman pregnant?
Suffer Well.
Suffer Well.
So Ukraine announced another look (what I think they have planned for some time as an "audit") at the head of Burisma. In other news today, Lindsey Graham officially said he is going to investigate Burisma/Biden and requested relevant documents from DOJ. One has to wonder that if Biden would have taken a major header in last night's debate, and was not still a possible contender, if Graham would have moved on this.