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?

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

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,

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.