VP Biden’s quid pro quo threat to Ukraine...

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
The only person who says he was investigating Burisma at the time he was fired was Shokin. Everyone else with knowledge of it says he wasn't. And again, it would be very weird if the ONLY corruption investigation he was undertaking was into Burisma.

As for the bolded, there's a lot of evidence that this is what Parnas, Giuliani, and Fruman did. A lot.
How can you be so sure? Who says so? This hasn't been investigated. We wouldn't be here today if it was because Zelensky would respond to the Trump phone call by saying, YES, we've already looked into it, we'll send you the report.

We also don't know that this was the only corruption he was investigating. But it doesn't matter. Would you or would you not agree: Biden should not get a prosecutor fired who was investigating his sons company, even if that prosecutor is dirty.

Yeah, and there's a mountain of evidence that the Dems decided to impeach the president for sniffing around, so that defensiveness speaks volumes. The way you've framed it, they should welcome an investigation into Burisma, it's going to show Rudy and Trump as the bad guys.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
How can you be so sure? Who says so? This hasn't been investigated. We wouldn't be here today if it was because Zelensky would respond to the Trump phone call by saying, YES, we've already looked into it, we'll send you the report.

We also don't know that this was the only corruption he was investigating. But it doesn't matter. Would you or would you not agree: Biden should not get a prosecutor fired who was investigating his sons company, even if that prosecutor is dirty.

Yeah, and there's a mountain of evidence that the Dems decided to impeach the president for sniffing around, so that defensiveness speaks volumes. The way you've framed it, they should welcome an investigation into Burisma, it's going to show Rudy and Trump as the bad guys.

This is so ridiculous. I could basically argue theory in the universe according to this logic. We also don't know that Trump didn't write a check to Zelensky personally for $100M on the condition that he investigate Biden.

I linked to an article that says that the current Ukrainian prosecutor IS investigating Burisma from before the time Hunter was involved, and that they're not investigating the Hunter portion because there's no evidence to do so: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV You don't actually read any of the relevant links and evidence, though, because what use is actual reporting when you can just say, "sure, but that's not what I choose to believe."

I've presented all sorts of people who've said Shokin never investigated anything, let alone Burisma, whereas you've presented no evidence to the contrary.

Sure, I agree with your second paragraph, except for the bolded, which implies he actually was investigating Burisma. Name an oligarch or government official that Shokin charged with crimes.
 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
This is so ridiculous. I could basically argue theory in the universe according to this logic. We also don't know that Trump didn't write a check to Zelensky personally for $100M on the condition that he investigate Biden.

I linked to an article that says that the current Ukrainian prosecutor IS investigating Burisma from before the time Hunter was involved, and that they're not investigating the Hunter portion because there's no evidence to do so: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV You don't actually read any of the relevant links and evidence, though, because what use is actual reporting when you can just say, "sure, but that's not what I choose to believe."

I've presented all sorts of people who've said Shokin never investigated anything, let alone Burisma, whereas you've presented no evidence to the contrary.

Sure, I agree with your second paragraph, except for the bolded, which implies he actually was investigating Burisma. Name an oligarch or government official that Shokin charged with crimes.
I'm not the one stating as absolute fact, things that you really can't possibly know. Do we have a roster of investigations Shokin was conducting or are we listening to third parties whose credibility we don't know?

Ok, there's no evidence, so we aren't investigating. Case closed. Convenient.

A condition for me even considering impeaching Trump is figuring out what was going on with Ukraine, Shokin, and the Bidens. The only way it's impeachable is if Trump KNEW there was absolutely nothing to the allegations. Then it would indeed be asking Ukraine to manufacture dirt. But if we're just not going there, then it's nowhere near impeachable. You choose.

I'm not choosing to believe or not believe. I don't trust incurious reporters who are biased toward Biden and against Trump that they've thoroughly looked into anything. You can cherry pick til the cows come home.

I can't name any Shokin investigation. He says he was investigating Burisma at the time of his firing. You aren't going to be able to distract me from that point. Investigate it. The word of Shokin is EVIDENCE. Stop saying there isn't any.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
I'm not the one stating as absolute fact, things that you really can't possibly know. Do we have a roster of investigations Shokin was conducting or are we listening to third parties whose credibility we don't know?

Ok, there's no evidence, so we aren't investigating. Case closed. Convenient.

A condition for me even considering impeaching Trump is figuring out what was going on with Ukraine, Shokin, and the Bidens. The only way it's impeachable is if Trump KNEW there was absolutely nothing to the allegations. Then it would indeed be asking Ukraine to manufacture dirt. But if we're just not going there, then it's nowhere near impeachable. You choose.

I'm not choosing to believe or not believe. I don't trust incurious reporters who are biased toward Biden and against Trump that they've thoroughly looked into anything. You can cherry pick til the cows come home.

I can't name any Shokin investigation. He says he was investigating Burisma at the time of his firing. You aren't going to be able to distract me from that point. Investigate it. The word of Shokin is EVIDENCE. Stop saying there isn't any.

On the first page you wrote, "And that Biden used a quid pro quo to get a prosecutor in Ukraine fired. Do you dispute either? So all that’s left is to wonder if those two are connected. Seems very likely. "

In fact the evidence indicates it's not likely.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
On the first page you wrote, "And that Biden used a quid pro quo to get a prosecutor in Ukraine fired. Do you dispute either? So all that’s left is to wonder if those two are connected. Seems very likely. "

In fact the evidence indicates it's not likely.
It hasn't been investigated, all we have are the word of unknown European and Ukrainian officials. And "no evidence to warrant an investigation."
Sure. No impeachment then.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
It hasn't been investigated, all we have are the word of unknown European and Ukrainian officials. And "no evidence to warrant an investigation."
Sure. No impeachment then.

If it hasn't been investigated, how can you say it's "very likely." They aren't unknown. They're named. Names like Rob Portman and Ron Johnson.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
On the first page you wrote, "And that Biden used a quid pro quo to get a prosecutor in Ukraine fired. Do you dispute either? So all that’s left is to wonder if those two are connected. Seems very likely. "

In fact the evidence indicates it's not likely.

There's a ton of evidence to suggest there was corruption involved.

First off, Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Second, the owner of the company was under multiple criminals investigations, in multiple countries, at the time Joe Biden flew to meet with him. Burisma's UK bank accounts were even frozen at the time Hunter Biden was appointed.

That Burisma was shady as hell, was common knowledge. There's no reasonable explanation for why the VP would fly to Ukraine to meet with an Oligarch under multiple criminal investigations.

The timing of Hunter Biden being named to B.O.D right after Joe Biden's meeting is also suspicious to any fair minded person.

It's also hard top believe it was coincidence that Hunter Biden was named to the B.O.D. & immediately we saw Burisma's consultancy firm specifically mentioning Hunter Biden's name in emails hoping to get a meeting with the State Dept. They again used Hunter Biden's name during their meeting with State attempting to clean up their tarnished image.

Then Joe Biden demanded the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired, and son-of-a-b*tch, he got fired.

You had multiple, left leaning MSM outlets at the time saying it looked bad. You had John Kerry's step-son, Christopher Heinz resigning from Burisma & alerting the Dept of State that they should be concerned. Dept of State had meetings about it.

If this wasn't a conflict of interests, what possibly could be? Worse yet, it was a shady company, under criminal investigation & many people warned this could be problematic, but the Biden's pushed forward anyhow. It's obviously worthy of suspicion.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
There's a ton of evidence to suggest there was corruption involved.

First off, Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Second, the owner of the company was under multiple criminals investigations, in multiple countries, at the time Joe Biden flew to meet with him. Burisma's UK bank accounts were even frozen at the time Hunter Biden was appointed.

That Burisma was shady as hell, was common knowledge. There's no reasonable explanation for why the VP would fly to Ukraine to meet with an Oligarch under multiple criminal investigations.

The timing of Hunter Biden being named to B.O.D right after Joe Biden's meeting is also suspicious to any fair minded person.

It's also hard top believe it was coincidence that Hunter Biden was named to the B.O.D. & immediately we saw Burisma's consultancy firm specifically mentioning Hunter Biden's name in emails hoping to get a meeting with the State Dept. They again used Hunter Biden's name during their meeting with State attempting to clean up their tarnished image.

Then Joe Biden demanded the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired, and son-of-a-b*tch, he got fired.

You had multiple, left leaning MSM outlets at the time saying it looked bad. You had John Kerry's step-son, Christopher Heinz resigning from Burisma & alerting the Dept of State that they should be concerned. Dept of State had meetings about it.

If this wasn't a conflict of interests, what possibly could be? Worse yet, it was a shady company, under criminal investigation & many people warned this could be problematic, but the Biden's pushed forward anyhow. It's obviously worthy of suspicion.

None of that suggests that Shokin was investigating anything, which is both what Section2 was asserting and would obviously be central to the question.

Here's the other key point. If we concede Section2 and KGF's suggestion that maybe Shokin was investigating Burisma, but nothing else, then why would having him fired in favor of a more anti-corruption prosecutor achieve anything whatsoever? Why would the next guy not just pick it up?
 
Last edited:

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
None of that suggests that Shokin was investigating anything, which is both what Section2 was asserting and would obviously be central to the question.

In my best Joy Behar voice "He should be happy he's being investigated".
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113

IRd9iZz.png


 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
None of that suggests that Shokin was investigating anything, which is both what Section2 was asserting and would obviously be central to the question.

Here's the other key point. If we concede Section2 and KGF's suggestion that maybe Shokin was investigating Burisma, but nothing else, then why would having him fired in favor of a more anti-corruption prosecutor achieve anything whatsoever? Why would the next guy not just pick it up?
yes, because it's 100% fact that the new prosecutor was 'more anti corruption'. Just the facts please.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
None of that suggests that Shokin was investigating anything, which is both what Section2 was asserting and would obviously be central to the question.

Here's the other key point. If we concede Section2 and KGF's suggestion that maybe Shokin was investigating Burisma, but nothing else, then why would having him fired in favor of a more anti-corruption prosecutor achieve anything whatsoever? Why would the next guy not just pick it up?
You can't just wish away the piles of evidence CRG listed. You can't just ignore it. Cmon, there must be tons of tweets and links you can come up with as a response.

It would be a HELL of a coincidence if CRG's post is all accurate, but it's also true that Shokin wasn't investigating them and Biden having Shokin fired was unrelated. Possible but incredibly unlikely.

In any event, if CRG is true, certainly there is nothing wrong with Trump asking Zelensky to investigate.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
You can't just wish away the piles of evidence CRG listed. You can't just ignore it. Cmon, there must be tons of tweets and links you can come up with as a response.

It would be a HELL of a coincidence if CRG's post is all accurate, but it's also true that Shokin wasn't investigating them and Biden having Shokin fired was unrelated. Possible but incredibly unlikely.

In any event, if CRG is true, certainly there is nothing wrong with Trump asking Zelensky to investigate.

I really like how I post link after link, quote after quote, of people saying that Shokin wasn't doing any anti-corruption prosecution and wasn't investigating Burisma, and you shrug it all off because there could be differing opinions. But then CRG says a bunch of stuff without any evidence whatsoever and I'm supposed to be taking it seriously.

No one said Hunter on the board wasn't a conflict of interest. But clearly conflicts of interest don't really bother Republicans. The question is whether Biden improperly got Shokin fired to help his son. If Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma, then there's no reason to think that would be the case.

BTW, here's John Herbst, GWB's ambassador to Ukraine, testifying to the Senate in the hearing linked above:

bM9SSka.png
 

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,847
Points
113
Ohhhh- High crimes.
You know, the language our founding fathers used and encoded into our law.

Too bad you don't respect what our founding fathers wrote. Unless it's convenient for you, in the moment. But if not, then trash it.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
If this was so above board, and there was unanimous opinion that the prosecutor was corrupt, why wouldn't Obama be the one to make the call?

Your links and references would be fine with me if this weren't the central point in an impeachment inquiry. So and so says this was good, EU agrees, some former diplomats under Bush agree. Those are not conclusive to me. Has it been investigated and proven? This is not that hard to prove one way or the other. It seems to me that we're introducing an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence as a way to ward off a real investigation.
 

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,847
Points
113
If this was so above board, and there was unanimous opinion that the prosecutor was corrupt, why wouldn't Obama be the one to make the call?

delegate
Pronunciation /ˈdeləɡət/ /ˈdɛləɡət/
noun

  • 1A person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.
    ‘congress delegates rejected the proposals’
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
If this was so above board, and there was unanimous opinion that the prosecutor was corrupt, why wouldn't Obama be the one to make the call?

Your links and references would be fine with me if this weren't the central point in an impeachment inquiry. So and so says this was good, EU agrees, some former diplomats under Bush agree. Those are not conclusive to me. Has it been investigated and proven? This is not that hard to prove one way or the other. It seems to me that we're introducing an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence as a way to ward off a real investigation.

But how DARE anyone ask why Trump put Rudy in charge of relations with Ukraine!

Because nothing says "this investigation is in the public interest" quite like "actual government officials need to leave the room to maintain attorney-client privilege." All the great diplomacy of the last 2 centuries was conducted simply between the President and his personal attorney

 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
But how DARE anyone ask why Trump put Rudy in charge of relations with Ukraine!
I don't have a problem whatsoever with asking that question. It's a good question. It just strikes me that Biden had an obvious conflict of interest here. So why couldn't Obama deliver the threat?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
I don't have a problem whatsoever with asking that question. It's a good question. It just strikes me that Biden had an obvious conflict of interest here. So why couldn't Obama deliver the threat?

I've said repeatedly that at the very least the optics are terrible and so I think your question is a fair one. Poor judgment not to have headed that off at the pass, certainly
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
Oh my..... Shokin accuses Biden as part of a murder plot against him.

 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
I've said repeatedly that at the very least the optics are terrible and so I think your question is a fair one. Poor judgment not to have headed that off at the pass, certainly
It's beyond poor judgement. At the time Hunter was HIRED, this got a lot of attention as a conflict of interest. There were tons of articles about it. The Obama admin was aware. So why for this very high profile prosecutor firing (and by the way, were there any other prosecutors anywhere else in the world that they did this), did they not have any other person in the admin make this threat?
It really boggles the mind.
also of great interest, why has Obama been silent?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Oh my..... Shokin accuses Biden as part of a murder plot against him.


Biden tried to kill me 5 years ago and I'm just mentioning it now!

You do realize that theepochtimes is run by the Falun Gong, right? That's your go-to news source? A propaganda arm for a Chinese cult? Facebook and Twitter removed hundreds of fake accounts that were pushing pro-Trump messages. Also, there's no actual reporting in that article on Biden, only references to John Solomon's reporting, which we know was heavily coordinated with Lev Parnas.
 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
Biden tried to kill me 5 years ago and I'm just mentioning it now!

You do realize that theepochtimes is run by the Falun Gong, right? That's your go-to news source? A propaganda arm for a Chinese cult? Facebook and Twitter removed hundreds of fake accounts that were pushing pro-Trump messages. Also, there's no actual reporting in that article on Biden, only references to John Solomon's reporting, which we know was heavily coordinated with Lev Parnas.
Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian president, but 9 months ago I said it was cordial and warm phone call. But now I've got this new book so guess what? Not warm and cordial!!
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,795
Reaction score
11,086
Points
113
Oh my..... Shokin accuses Biden as part of a murder plot against him.

Shokin is the voice to be trusted in this matter. You truly have no shame linking these sources, do you? Tell me more about how biased the New York Times and Washington Post are.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian president, but 9 months ago I said it was cordial and warm phone call. But now I've got this new book so guess what? Not warm and cordial!!

Toeing the company line nine months ago is a very far cry from not reporting a murder attempt for 5 years.

If only there were a way we could get the real story from Bolton in such a way that if he lied there would be repercussions...

Damn that John Bolton and his insistence on using proper channels

 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
Toeing the company line nine months ago is a very far cry from not reporting a murder attempt for 5 years.

If only there were a way we could get the real story from Bolton in such a way that if he lied there would be repercussions...

Damn that John Bolton and his insistence on using proper channels

Hey man, if you don't want to believe Shokin, I have no problem. That seems like a reasonable position. I'd need to hear a lot of details about this supposed murder plot involving biden to start to give it any pause.
I think Bolton is probably telling the truth. I agree with Lamar Alexander completely. It's pretty obvious that Trump did indeed want to withhold aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate. Not impeachable. It's over.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Hey man, if you don't want to believe Shokin, I have no problem. That seems like a reasonable position. I'd need to hear a lot of details about this supposed murder plot involving biden to start to give it any pause.
I think Bolton is probably telling the truth. I agree with Lamar Alexander completely. It's pretty obvious that Trump did indeed want to withhold aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate. Not impeachable. It's over.

I will give you credit for having argued that position fairly consistently this whole time. Others have tried to argue both that Trump didn't do it AND that he did it and it was just and noble.

As for your last sentence, impeachment may be over, but this story is not. There's a lot left to hear from Bolton and Parnas. Parnas will almost assuredly talk under oath at some point.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
I will give you credit for having argued that position fairly consistently this whole time. Others have tried to argue both that Trump didn't do it AND that he did it and it was just and noble.

As for your last sentence, impeachment may be over, but this story is not. There's a lot left to hear from Bolton and Parnas. Parnas will almost assuredly talk under oath at some point.
yeah, because most people have an outcome in mind, and filter out the facts that confirm their bias. Like you my friend.
I think impeachment is an incredibly big deal. The process to remove a president is an election. There better be some incredibly good reasons to even consider it. And the house's base case, is that we can't trust the election results unless we impeach him. That's a far more dangerous sentiment for our democracy than Trump's Ukraine nonsense.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
yeah, because most people have an outcome in mind, and filter out the facts that confirm their bias. Like you my friend.
I think impeachment is an incredibly big deal. The process to remove a president is an election. There better be some incredibly good reasons to even consider it. And the house's base case, is that we can't trust the election results unless we impeach him. That's a far more dangerous sentiment for our democracy than Trump's Ukraine nonsense.

Yeah, who came up with impeachment anyway. It's not like it's in the Constitution
 
Top Bottom