Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
The problem with the politico article is that it was so early after the election, they hadn't gotten the memo yet that it was all hands on deck to take down Trump at all cost. They didn't realize that this was a turning point in US politics that you had to pick a side as a media outlet and it was a criminal offence to investigate anything that showed how the democrats were as much or more involved in creating subversive propaganda than the republicans. They were still stupid enough to think an honest, investigative news story was worth reporting, no matter who it damaged.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Agreed! Great post.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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/
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perry is quiet because he’s refusing to testify.

ACE, any comment on Solomon’s now-discredited story? Guessing not...
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [gofigure] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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/
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, here is some dirt on Hunter Biden.

From Arkansas not Ukraine.

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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...)
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh wrote:
Well, here is some dirt on Hunter Biden.

From Arkansas not Ukraine.

Out of wedlock child makes news...in Arkansas?

“Read the transcript.”
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [sslothrop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sslothrop wrote:
jmh wrote:
Well, here is some dirt on Hunter Biden.

From Arkansas not Ukraine.


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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh wrote:
Well, here is some dirt on Hunter Biden.

From Arkansas not Ukraine.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Uncle Arqyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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).
Last edited by: trail: Nov 20, 19 18:14
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [Uncle Arqyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Why no interest the what the Bidens may have done? [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
    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.
Quote Reply

Prev Next