Biden’s $1.5 Billion China-Ukraine Bribery Scandal That Was Ignored by Media is now Trump’s Scandal

[busybee01]

That's a big azzed If, right there.

True! Why is that "if" there? That's Politifact's attempt at a fig leaf. Please read the details provided by Joe below...

Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived
"In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat."

I don't see anything that warrants an "if"..

the prosecutor was CORRUPT and not going after the corruption the new president was hired for....

the prosecutor's deputy prosecutors were found with piles of diamonds and gold in their homes, from all the payoffs the elite running the corrupt businesses were paying them to not prosecute them.....

All of our allies were in support of the US's actions of with holding help, until the new president fired the crooked prosecutor.

It was not hidden, their goal was known by all in our government and all in other EU gvts like the UK.

It had nothing to do with his son being a board member for an Oligarch's company there.

And it was done in the best interest of the Ukraine to rid them of the overwhelming corruption the prosecutor was a part of, and theft of their citizens, and the UK, and the USA...who were funding the repair of the Ukraine with diplomatic funds and were concerned with our USA money just ending up in corrupt hands.

The quid pro quo, was a diplomatic one, which happens all the time in Diplomacy, was in the interest of the USA... not for personal or political gain, of themselves

A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.

Your source is not trustworthy.

FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle Bookmarks
Share

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left

They bothered to talk to a Ukrainian reformer which gives it more validity than you clowns have. Take your lying ass and shove it.

The story has no validity. The source is flawed.

You are the one pushing wild conspiracy theories and you talk about validity and flaws. Your head in invalid and flawed.

 

[playtime]

& now for something completely different: the truth.

politics
Timeline in Ukraine Probe Casts Doubt on Giuliani’s Biden Claim
By
Stephanie Baker
and
Daryna Krasnolutska
May 7, 2019, 12:00 AM EDT Updated on May 7, 2019, 11:37 AM EDT
[...]

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

Kasko’s assessment adds a wrinkle to one of the first political intrigues of the 2020 election season. It undercuts the idea that Biden, now a top Democratic presidential candidate, was seeking to sideline a prosecutor who was actively threatening a company tied to his son. Instead, it appears more consistent with Biden’s previous statements that he was pressing for the removal of a prosecutor who was failing to tackle rampant corruption: According to public reports and internal documents from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, U.S. officials had expressed concern for more than a year about Ukrainian prosecutors’ failure to assist an international investigation of Zlochevsky.
[...]
Hunter Biden joined the board in April 2014, two months after U.K. authorities requested information from Ukraine as part of a probe against Zlochevsky related to money laundering allegations. Zlochevsky had been minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests.

After the U.K. request, Ukrainian prosecutors opened their own case, accusing Zlochevsky of embezzling public funds. Burisma and Zlochevsky have denied the allegations.
[...]
The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.

Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion if Ukraine didn’t crack down on corruption reportedly came in March. That same month, hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and he was dismissed.
[...]
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


you're welcome.

 

[busybee01]

Is this what that mysterious whistleblower complaint involving Trump and a foreign leader is about?

Hotair ^ | 09/20/2019 | AllahPundit

Lots of buzz about this in political media this afternoon. But then, there were also many “bombshells” during the course of the Mueller investigation that caused a stir in political media and you know how those turned out.

Speculation about the troubling “promise” Trump may or may not have made to a foreign leader has naturally focused on Putin and Kim Jong Un. Did he promise Putin he’d make some startling international concession, like exiting NATO, in exchange for God knows what? Did he tell Kim that he’d withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea if Kim did X,Y, and Z? The mind reels. Journalist Laura Rozen flagged this passage from a story yesterday in the Independent, though, that may point in a different direction.

Note that the story has nothing to do with the whistleblower complaint. It’s about Trump’s relations with the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. But the timeline fits. And there’s been some odd media chatter about Trump and Ukraine lately.

[T]here have been claims that Mr Trump had refused to meet Mr Zelensky after his election this year, and that US officials have warned this would continue to be the case unless the Ukrainian authorities reopened the Burisma files.

The house committees’ chairs say they will scrutinise a telephone call between the US president and Mr Zelensky on 25 July, during which Mr Trump allegedly told the Ukrainian president to reopen the Biden investigation if he wanted to improve relations with the US.

They claim that Kurt Volker, the US special representative for Ukraine, was told to intercede with President Zelensky by the White House, and they are looking into the activities of Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer.

The whistleblower complaint landed on the inspector general’s desk on August 12. “The Biden investigation” refers to allegations that Joe Biden leaned on the Ukrainian government while he was VP to fire a prosecutor who just so happened to be looking into a company called Burisma, one of whose directors was Biden’s son, Hunter. That investigation was eventually shut down but Team Trump has taken an interest in seeing it reopened since at least May. Rudy Giuliani was slated to visit Ukraine to lobby for reopening the case that month but canceled his trip when the media noticed. Was the president using his lawyer to muscle a foreign power in order to generate dirt on his most likely 2020 opponent?

A month later, Trump flatly told ABC News that he probably would accept dirt on an opponent from foreign sources. And Giuliani did finally end up meeting the Ukrainians in August to discuss the Biden case and whether any Ukrainian officials tried to damage Trump during the 2016 campaign by sharing dirt with the Democrats.

As I write this, no newspaper has claimed to know the substance of the whistleblower complaint or what the mystery call between Trump and the foreign leader was about. But whether they really don’t know or *do* know and are withholding the information right now are two different things. There may be natsec reasons not to report what they know, or it may be that they simply can’t nail down the story with sufficient sourcing yet. But WaPo published an editorial two weeks ago about Trump and Ukraine that took the unusual step of introducing some original reporting into the mix — a strange move for a feature in the opinion section.

[W]e’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.

“We’re reliably told”? Who told them? And why wasn’t that information reliable enough for a news story?

Maybe this was WaPo’s way of teasing what it knew about the whistleblower complaint, tucking it into an editorial while it remains technically unsubstantiated so that it doesn’t have to stake the credibility of the news division on it just yet. If so, the “promise” Trump may have made to the as yet unnamed foreign leader could be this: “Zelensky, if you reopen the Biden investigation and generate dirt on him for me, I promise that you’ll finally get that military aid we’ve pledged.” Lo and behold, after a long delay, just one week ago Ukraine did get the $250 million in U.S. military aid it had been waiting for. Not only that, according to Zelensky it’s getting an extra $140 million. Why? Unclear right now.

There’s one other thing. The Times reported today, cryptically, that the whistleblower complaint was “related to a series of actions that go beyond any single discussion with a foreign leader, according to interviews on Thursday.” It’s not just the chat between Trump and the mystery president, it’s other stuff too. That would also potentially fit Ukraine and Zelensky as the subject — there’s military aid involved, there’s Giuliani leaning on them over the Biden case, there’s the angle involving 2016 dirt. As I say, Trump’s team has showed interest in the Biden matter since at least May, shortly after Grandpa Joe entered the presidential race. There’s more to this than just a phone call, if in fact Zelensky is the leader in question.

It’s all just speculation. But if it turns out that Trump tried to extort a foreign leader into damaging his 2020 opponent and used taxpayer money to do it, yeah, he’s going to be impeached. Not even Pelosi will be able to stop that train.

If this actually happened, @realDonaldTrump should be impeached and removed from office without delay. Laura Rozen on Twitter

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) September 19, 2019



You can already anticipate the response: “Why wasn’t Biden impeached when he leaned on the Ukrainians over the prosecutor sniffing around his son’s business?” We may end up spending the better part of next year on that.

There’s an interesting legal question swirling around all this, as tends to happen with Trump’s uses of presidential power. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to perform oversight of the president on national security? There’s a secondary legal question of whether they have *statutory* authority to perform oversight in this case: According to the Times, the acting DNI and the inspector general have a difference of opinion on the matter, with the IG claiming that the statute says the whistleblower complaint must be handed to Congress and the DNI claiming that Trump technically isn’t part of the “intelligence community,” in which case no, it doesn’t. (Adam Schiff is threatening to sue.)

But there’s a deeper, and frightening, question of whether Congress is entitled to the complaint under the Constitution even if the courts decide that the IG is right about what the statute says. Read this short but interesting Twitter thread from lawyer Jack Goldsmith who argues … no, Congress shouldn’t be entitled to know what the president is saying to foreign leaders even if he’s abusing his foreign-policy power. “Putting it brutally,” he writes, “Article II gives the president the authority to do, and say, and pledge, awful things in the secret conduct of U.S. foreign policy. That is a very dangerous discretion, to be sure, but has long been thought worth it on balance.” The president gets to do what he wants on FoPo and we must simply trust him and hope for the best — unless, of course, someone in the executive branch leaks his communications and accepts the criminal consequences. That person would go to prison. But Congress would have the material it needs, potentially, to impeach.

Update: If only I’d waited a few hours to write this post I could have saved myself some work. WaPo is reporting this evening that, yes, the whistleblower complaint is about Ukraine.

A whistleblower complaint about President Trump made by an intelligence official centers on Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter, which has set off a struggle between Congress and the executive branch…

In letters to the White House and State Department, top Democrats earlier this month demanded records related to what they say are Trump and Giuliani’s efforts “to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing two politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity” — one to help Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is in prison for illegal lobbying and financial fraud, and a second to target the son of former vice president Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump…

Lawmakers also became aware in August that the Trump administration may be trying to stop [military] aid from reaching Ukraine, according to a congressional official.

I wonder why Bill Barr is not going to let Congress see the documents.

maybe the trump asshole barr doesn't know the law? That the house has the right to oversee?

But not conversations between heads of state....Strictly executive privelege...duh!!!!

Never heard of separation of powers, have you?...Lololol

Executive privilege does not apply. We are entitled to know what the President is telling foreign leaders. This should be under the FOIA.

 

[busybee01]

Is this what that mysterious whistleblower complaint involving Trump and a foreign leader is about?

Hotair ^ | 09/20/2019 | AllahPundit

Lots of buzz about this in political media this afternoon. But then, there were also many “bombshells” during the course of the Mueller investigation that caused a stir in political media and you know how those turned out.

Speculation about the troubling “promise” Trump may or may not have made to a foreign leader has naturally focused on Putin and Kim Jong Un. Did he promise Putin he’d make some startling international concession, like exiting NATO, in exchange for God knows what? Did he tell Kim that he’d withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea if Kim did X,Y, and Z? The mind reels. Journalist Laura Rozen flagged this passage from a story yesterday in the Independent, though, that may point in a different direction.

Note that the story has nothing to do with the whistleblower complaint. It’s about Trump’s relations with the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. But the timeline fits. And there’s been some odd media chatter about Trump and Ukraine lately.

[T]here have been claims that Mr Trump had refused to meet Mr Zelensky after his election this year, and that US officials have warned this would continue to be the case unless the Ukrainian authorities reopened the Burisma files.

The house committees’ chairs say they will scrutinise a telephone call between the US president and Mr Zelensky on 25 July, during which Mr Trump allegedly told the Ukrainian president to reopen the Biden investigation if he wanted to improve relations with the US.

They claim that Kurt Volker, the US special representative for Ukraine, was told to intercede with President Zelensky by the White House, and they are looking into the activities of Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer.

The whistleblower complaint landed on the inspector general’s desk on August 12. “The Biden investigation” refers to allegations that Joe Biden leaned on the Ukrainian government while he was VP to fire a prosecutor who just so happened to be looking into a company called Burisma, one of whose directors was Biden’s son, Hunter. That investigation was eventually shut down but Team Trump has taken an interest in seeing it reopened since at least May. Rudy Giuliani was slated to visit Ukraine to lobby for reopening the case that month but canceled his trip when the media noticed. Was the president using his lawyer to muscle a foreign power in order to generate dirt on his most likely 2020 opponent?

A month later, Trump flatly told ABC News that he probably would accept dirt on an opponent from foreign sources. And Giuliani did finally end up meeting the Ukrainians in August to discuss the Biden case and whether any Ukrainian officials tried to damage Trump during the 2016 campaign by sharing dirt with the Democrats.

As I write this, no newspaper has claimed to know the substance of the whistleblower complaint or what the mystery call between Trump and the foreign leader was about. But whether they really don’t know or *do* know and are withholding the information right now are two different things. There may be natsec reasons not to report what they know, or it may be that they simply can’t nail down the story with sufficient sourcing yet. But WaPo published an editorial two weeks ago about Trump and Ukraine that took the unusual step of introducing some original reporting into the mix — a strange move for a feature in the opinion section.

[W]e’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.

“We’re reliably told”? Who told them? And why wasn’t that information reliable enough for a news story?

Maybe this was WaPo’s way of teasing what it knew about the whistleblower complaint, tucking it into an editorial while it remains technically unsubstantiated so that it doesn’t have to stake the credibility of the news division on it just yet. If so, the “promise” Trump may have made to the as yet unnamed foreign leader could be this: “Zelensky, if you reopen the Biden investigation and generate dirt on him for me, I promise that you’ll finally get that military aid we’ve pledged.” Lo and behold, after a long delay, just one week ago Ukraine did get the $250 million in U.S. military aid it had been waiting for. Not only that, according to Zelensky it’s getting an extra $140 million. Why? Unclear right now.

There’s one other thing. The Times reported today, cryptically, that the whistleblower complaint was “related to a series of actions that go beyond any single discussion with a foreign leader, according to interviews on Thursday.” It’s not just the chat between Trump and the mystery president, it’s other stuff too. That would also potentially fit Ukraine and Zelensky as the subject — there’s military aid involved, there’s Giuliani leaning on them over the Biden case, there’s the angle involving 2016 dirt. As I say, Trump’s team has showed interest in the Biden matter since at least May, shortly after Grandpa Joe entered the presidential race. There’s more to this than just a phone call, if in fact Zelensky is the leader in question.

It’s all just speculation. But if it turns out that Trump tried to extort a foreign leader into damaging his 2020 opponent and used taxpayer money to do it, yeah, he’s going to be impeached. Not even Pelosi will be able to stop that train.

If this actually happened, @realDonaldTrump should be impeached and removed from office without delay. Laura Rozen on Twitter

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) September 19, 2019



You can already anticipate the response: “Why wasn’t Biden impeached when he leaned on the Ukrainians over the prosecutor sniffing around his son’s business?” We may end up spending the better part of next year on that.

There’s an interesting legal question swirling around all this, as tends to happen with Trump’s uses of presidential power. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to perform oversight of the president on national security? There’s a secondary legal question of whether they have *statutory* authority to perform oversight in this case: According to the Times, the acting DNI and the inspector general have a difference of opinion on the matter, with the IG claiming that the statute says the whistleblower complaint must be handed to Congress and the DNI claiming that Trump technically isn’t part of the “intelligence community,” in which case no, it doesn’t. (Adam Schiff is threatening to sue.)

But there’s a deeper, and frightening, question of whether Congress is entitled to the complaint under the Constitution even if the courts decide that the IG is right about what the statute says. Read this short but interesting Twitter thread from lawyer Jack Goldsmith who argues … no, Congress shouldn’t be entitled to know what the president is saying to foreign leaders even if he’s abusing his foreign-policy power. “Putting it brutally,” he writes, “Article II gives the president the authority to do, and say, and pledge, awful things in the secret conduct of U.S. foreign policy. That is a very dangerous discretion, to be sure, but has long been thought worth it on balance.” The president gets to do what he wants on FoPo and we must simply trust him and hope for the best — unless, of course, someone in the executive branch leaks his communications and accepts the criminal consequences. That person would go to prison. But Congress would have the material it needs, potentially, to impeach.

Update: If only I’d waited a few hours to write this post I could have saved myself some work. WaPo is reporting this evening that, yes, the whistleblower complaint is about Ukraine.

A whistleblower complaint about President Trump made by an intelligence official centers on Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter, which has set off a struggle between Congress and the executive branch…

In letters to the White House and State Department, top Democrats earlier this month demanded records related to what they say are Trump and Giuliani’s efforts “to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing two politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity” — one to help Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is in prison for illegal lobbying and financial fraud, and a second to target the son of former vice president Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump…

Lawmakers also became aware in August that the Trump administration may be trying to stop [military] aid from reaching Ukraine, according to a congressional official.

I wonder why Bill Barr is not going to let Congress see the documents.

maybe the trump asshole barr doesn't know the law? That the house has the right to oversee?

But not conversations between heads of state....Strictly executive privelege...duh!!!!

Never heard of separation of powers, have you?...Lololol

Ever hear of the powers of OVERSIGHT? Power given to the house?

Only the executive has the power to make FOREIGN POLICY....ALL Congress has is the power to OK treaties that the executive makes....nice try but false talling point...again,,,☆Lolol

You are the fake. The Congress has the power of oversight and they are entitled to know what the President is doing in any policy area. They can defund any initiative that a President takes including on foreign policy. The latest CR has a provision that prevents the President from taking foreign aid money.

 

[playtime]

The hypocrisy of the left is astonishing. They are doing their damnedest to shield Biden and his son from their criminal collusion with China and Ukraine deals.

You Just Can't Make This Up! Joe Biden's $1.5 Billion China-Ukraine Bribery Scandal That Was Ignored by Media is now President Trump's Scandal!

More gateway pundit?
They believe we landed on the moon yet?.
I think Hillary was behind it don't you, mr zero college closed mind person?

first the pos asked russia for help and now the Ukraine? When will repubs boil this pos in Oil? Throw McConnell and Giuliani in the pot too

Trump talking to Ukraine is executive privilege.

trump asking for their help in an election is punishable in our courts

& executive privilege is not sanctioned if it is used in the course of a crime.

conspiracy to defraud the united states IS a criminal act. & so is election fraud. pg 164 describes that no 'contribution' ie goods(money) or services can be received by a foreign national (government employee or entity) that can influence the outcome of a US election.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf

 

[busybee01]

Obama, his DOJ, NSA, CIA, & his FBI.protected Clinton from indictment for obvious crimes...then they collaborated in a coup attempt that included working with foreign Intel agents...

Joe Biden used his power as VP to force Ukraine to drop a criminal case against his son.

The Ukraine tried for years under Obama to hand over evidence of crimes committed by Democrats and their allies in Kiev, it Barry's team / ambassador in the Ukraine kept blocking it from happening.

There is enough crime there yo send the President, VP, Dep US AG, NSA Directo, CIA Director, FBI Director, sect of State, and more to prison.

Faced with this criminal administration who attempted a coup against him, President Trump requested from the Ukraine the information they already tried to give to the US....and the Dems, Biden, leftist media, & snowflakes want to call what Trump did 'criminal'....

Bwuhahahaha

You come riding in with your crazy conspiracy theories. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Ukraine was investigating Biden's son. He worked to get rid of the prosecutor because he was not taking action against corruption. That position was supported by world leaders and Ukrainians. You have nothing but a pack of lies to back you up.

The trouble with sending someone to prison is you have to have a crime. There was no coup as you have no clue what you are talking about. The IG found there were no politics involved and found no fault with the decision to not prosecute Clinton.

What Trump wanted Ukraine to do was investigate the son of a political rival. They had no information to give to the US. More lies.

 

[progressive hunter]

The we love Trump because he bothers liberals is a childish game that's costing our country. The only people winning in all this is the Trump family. You cheerleaders are getting fucked up the arse with no lube but you don't mind getting done that way just as long as you think liberals are losing. Whatcha gonna do if Trump gets a second term and the recession hits? What happens when to countries who agree to the Paris Accords refuse to do business with the US? What happens when Trumps southern border policy causes the rest of the world to treat us like South Africa was treated during apartheid? What happens when we declare war on Iran and the allies Trump dissed say "America First"?

We are not winning anything with this fool as president. Nobody, and that means you extremists.

great post and great thinking I'm thankful for folks like you posting here

You should be...we keep showing what fools you are!....Easy to troll when little memes set you off@

No you aren't. You're another example of a dumb fuck who would rather see our country die than accept the diversity of it's citizenry.

thats racist,,,

 

[easyt65]

It's not 'Conspiracy Theory', snowflakes.

Nadler and Schiff, continuing to be aided by anti-Trump conspirators who remain in the Intel agencies, are still trying to salvage Obam's failed coup attempt:

"...Current and former intelligence officials continue to leak like sieves in their years-long campaign against the sitting president. Thus, the existence of the complaint, the report of it to the IGIC, and the acting DNI’s refusal to alert Congress became known to the media and to Chairman Schiff."



Trump Whistleblower Claim: Congress Should Investigate | National Review


Like every other attempt to take down Trump, this one will boomerang and end up hitting / hurting the Democrats.

As Ukraine's President stepped up and defended President Trump and squashed the latest anti-Trump false natrative, the only thing the media has accomplished was to bring Biden's abuse of power as VP to pressure the Ukraine to drop the crimal case against his son back up for everyone to talk about again.

Remember, if there was no Biden-Ukraine scandal & if Joe had / has nothing to hide there would be no reason for Trump to talk to Ukraine's President about it...

BOOMERANG!




.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[easyt65]

Rumor, INUENDO, MORE DEEP STATE LEFTIST COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE PROPAGANDA ... that just brought the Biden-Ukraine scandal back up, front and center.

BOOMERANG!

 

[edward37]

trump afraid to let House get call info What's he afraid of ? The man is a lying crook with simpletons supporting him

 

[edward37]

Trump ,trolling for dirt with foreign country to get info on opposition. Tying aid to the release of dirt on opposition??
Throw the SOB in jail

 

[Zorro!]

IS ELIZABETH WARREN IS BEHIND THIS WHOLE “WHISTLEBLOWER” THING?

There’s Enough Evidence Proving Ukraine SHOULD Investigate Hunter Biden.

 

[playtime]

trump afraid to let House get call info What's he afraid of ? The man is a lying crook with simpletons supporting him

hell, why won't he release his tax returns? nobody seems to be able to defend that either. donny is a scum sucking criminal from his tribblehead down to his cheeto dusted toenails.

 

[Zorro!]

“Bidens Made Big Money Selling Public Office!… Did Obama Know?” – Rudy Giuliani DESTROYS Biden Crime Family in Series of Monday Tweets!

After leaving office in 2017, Vice President Joe Biden Bragged about strong-arming the government of Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor.

Shokin was investigating $3 million in funds that were being transferred out of Ukraine and into accounts in the United States at that time.

Joe Biden had him fired.

On Monday Rudy Giuliani dropped a BOMB on the Biden Crime family.

Rudy accused the former Ukrainian government of laundering $3 million to Biden family

Rudy posted a series of tweets on the Biden-Ukraine scandal.

Rudy Giuliani: NEW FACT: One $3 million payment to Biden’s son from Ukraine to Latvia to Cyprus to US. When Prosecutor asked Cyprus for amount going to son, he was told US embassy (Obama’s) instructed them not to provide the amount. Prosecutor getting too close to son and Biden had him fired.

Did Obama know that his VP, the one he put in charge of giving billions to Ukraine, had a son who was making millions on the board of one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine. Biden’s boss had stolen $5b from Ukraine and was a fugitive. Did Obama know? Did he approve?

Biden scandal only beginning. Lots more evidence on Ukraine like today’s money laundering of $3 million. 4 or 5 big disclosures. Also the $1.5 billion China gave to Biden’s fund while Joe was, as usual, failing in his negotiations with China is worse.

What Did Obama know?
And when did he know it?

 

[deanrd]

Wow! The Biden’s must be really rich now. So where are they keeping all that money?

 

[edthecynic]

Shokin was investigating $3 million in funds that were being transferred out of Ukraine and into accounts in the United States at that time.

Gatewaypundit FAKE NEWS!