Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thank you for this reasonable response---and you may be right---I am no Criminal Law Attorney.Sounds more like extortion to me. But in order for it to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor, it has to be shown that the investigator was closing in on Hunter Biden and protecting Hunter and his unexplainable extremely lucrative deal on the Burisma Board of Directors, most especially when it was quid pro quo to get access to the White house. I don't know that this long after the fact that the evidence is there.
New memos undercut Biden-Ukraine narrative Democrats sold during 2019 impeachment scandal
Newly disclosed State Department memos conflict with the narrative Democrats crafted since 2019 impeachment.justthenews.com
"Just weeks before then-Vice President Joe Biden took the opposite action in late 2015, a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department officials declared that Ukraine had made adequate progress on anti-corruption reforms and deserved a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee, according to government memos that conflict with the narrative Democrats have sustained since the 2019 impeachment scandal."
*****
The recommendation...directly conflict{s} with the long-held narrative that Biden was conducting official U.S. policy when he threatened to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to force Ukraine to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, the country’s equivalent of the American attorney general.
"At the time the threat was made in December 2015, Shokin’s office was conducting an increasingly aggressive corruption investigation into Burisma Holdings, an energy firm the State Department deemed to have been engaged in bribery and that employed Hunter Biden and paid him millions while his father was vice president."
*****
At the time Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption, the company was paying Hunter Biden and Archer, $83,333 a month as board members.
“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 recounted in the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
___________________________________________________________________
Seems to me Bribery is a sure thing.
Maybe. I can see how it is bribery, but extortion for profit is also a high crime and misdemeanor.Thank you for this reasonable response---and you may be right---I am no Criminal Law Attorney.
But, I disagree. If Joe did what it very much appears he did--it was not to protect Hunter; it was to earn the money that Hunter was being paid. Bribery. I do know the Bribery laws can apply when the consideration (the Money) is paid to a family member, not yourself----because that's what naturally would happen when you are being bribed.
"Shokin WASN'T investigating Burisma."Where your bullshit narrative falls apart is that Shokin WASN'T investigating Burisma. And that was the reason he was fired. He was supposed to be investigating Burisma but he was not completing any of the investigations assigned.
Sounds more like extortion to me. But in order for it to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor, it has to be shown that the investigator was closing in on Hunter Biden and protecting Hunter and his unexplainable extremely lucrative deal on the Burisma Board of Directors, most especially when it was quid pro quo to get access to the White house. I don't know that this long after the fact that the evidence is there.
"Shokin WASN'T investigating Burisma."
Show evidence. Shokin says the opposite. Don't just call bullshit like we are on an elementary school playground. Refute the article. Maybe go even further and explain why you think Burisma might have decided to pay a crackhead an huge amount of money for any other reason than his father was VP who had been given the Ukraine Portfolio.
You see, the people who provide this board expect, and have a right to expect---reasonable debate, which would include something to back up what you say. The John Solomon article is the post. Do you have anything at all to to back up your claim that it is Bullshit?
abcnews.go.com
Sounds more like extortion to me. But in order for it to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor, it has to be shown that the investigator was closing in on Hunter Biden and protecting Hunter and his unexplainable extremely lucrative deal on the Burisma Board of Directors, most especially when it was quid pro quo to get access to the White house. I don't know that this long after the fact that the evidence is there.
"....bribery clearly took place: The Biden family was paid in exchange for explicit favors done by then Vice President Joe Biden for a foreign entity.It's actually Bribery, an explicitly enumerated crime in the impeachment clause. And it actually doesn't have to be shown that Shokin was closing in on Hunter. Burisma thought Shokin was after them and asked Hunter/Joe to do something about it.
As these docs show Joe went rogue and changed US policy to leverage the US aid to get Shokin fired.
The FBI 1023 further indicates that Hunter and Joe were each paid $5M for Shokin's firing, in addition to the $83K/month Hunter was being paid.
It's just a matter of semantics really. If Biden says pay me and I'll do whatever for you, that's bribery. If Biden threatens to withhold $1B unless you do whatever for me personally, that's extortion. But whichever, it would rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors if the purpose was to profit oneself or ones family etc. personally.It's actually Bribery, an explicitly enumerated crime in the impeachment clause. And it actually doesn't have to be shown that Shokin was closing in on Hunter. Burisma thought Shokin was after them and asked Hunter/Joe to do something about it.
As these docs show Joe went rogue and changed US policy to leverage the US aid to get Shokin fired.
The FBI 1023 further indicates that Hunter and Joe were each paid $5M for Shokin's firing, in addition to the $83K/month Hunter was being paid.
It's just a matter of semantics really. If Biden says pay me and I'll do whatever for you, that's bribery. If Biden threatens to withhold $1B unless you do whatever for me personally, that's extortion. But whichever, it would rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors if the purpose was to profit oneself or ones family etc. personally.
Again, it doesn't matter whether or not Shokin was investigating them, Burisma though he was and they paid the Bidens to get him fired. That's bribery.Trump got a lot accomplished by telling this or that world leader that you did this or I'll do that. But it was never for personal profit but to achieve some value to our country. That is not at all illegal.
So was Shokin investigating Burisma? Most sources--at least those Google will allow us to see--say no. Without proof that they were, that argument simply won't fly as bribery or extortion no matter what the facts actually are.
You may be right but again, I cannot find any credible source that confirms that beyond a reasonable doubt. So I'm waiting to see if the investigations in progress turn up something and if not, we'll just have to speculate but we can't prove anything.I see what you are saying. You're right - it was actually two crimes - Bribery with respect to Burisma and extortion with respect to Ukraine.
Again, it doesn't matter whether or not Shokin was investigating them, Burisma though he was and they paid the Bidens to get him fired. That's bribery.
We can prove at least $20M going to members of the Biden family. We can prove Burisma asked Hunter to call DC to do something about Shokin. We can prove Joe when to the Ukraine 4 days later and did his extortion thing to get Shokin fired. We can prove it was not US policy to get Shokin fired We can prove that State OK'ed the $1b without any strings and Joe went rogue. We can prove the Ambassador wrote back to state that having Hunter at Burisma was complicating US policy in UkraineYou may be right but again, I cannot find any credible source that confirms that beyond a reasonable doubt. So I'm waiting to see if the investigations in progress turn up something and if not, we'll just have to speculate but we can't prove anything.
Maybe. But Burisma asking Hunter to intervene for them is not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you can prove the Biden unethically or illegally used his title/office to do something that benefitted Hunter or himself. I don't know there's evidence for that. An accusation is not evidence most especially when it is made by a politically motivated person or persons.We can prove at least $20M going to members of the Biden family. We can prove Burisma asked Hunter to call DC to do something about Shokin. We can prove Joe when to the Ukraine 4 days later and did his extortion thing to get Shokin fired. We can prove it was not US policy to get Shokin fired We can prove that State OK'ed the $1b without any strings and Joe went rogue. We can prove the Ambassador wrote back to state that having Hunter at Burisma was complicating US policy in Ukraine
Enough to get a criminal conviction? Perhaps. Enough to impeach Joe Biden - no question.
Not sure what more you need. Hundreds of people have been convicted of murder without any body.Maybe. But Burisma asking Hunter to intervene for them is not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you can prove the Biden unethically or illegally used his title/office to do something that benefitted Hunter or himself. I don't know there's evidence for that. An accusation is not evidence most especially when it is made by a politically motivated person or persons.
I want hard evidence before I will unequivocally pronounce somebody guilty. Having contempt for a person or rumors or propaganda or wanting something to be true just isn't enough. I want MAGAs/Patriots/Republicans/the good guys to not fall prey to group think but to always look for the verifiable facts.
I do hope investigators, both professional and amateur, keep digging and keep the pressure on though because we no longer have a media we can count on to do that.
There's no lie the left won't tell. Not only was he investigating Burisma, he was seizing it's assets.Shokin WASN'T investigating Burisma.
I guess I'm just a bit jaded and thus overly cautious Rawley. There is so much disinformation put out there from both sides these days, I choose not to be too quick to believe anything.Not sure what more you need. Hundreds of people have been convicted of murder without any body.
Just what we needed. The millionth thread on this nonsense.New memos undercut Biden-Ukraine narrative Democrats sold during 2019 impeachment scandal
Newly disclosed State Department memos conflict with the narrative Democrats crafted since 2019 impeachment.
"Just weeks before then-Vice President Joe Biden took the opposite action in late 2015, a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department officials declared that Ukraine had made adequate progress on anti-corruption reforms and deserved a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee, according to government memos that conflict with the narrative Democrats have sustained since the 2019 impeachment scandal."
*****
The recommendation...directly conflict{s} with the long-held narrative that Biden was conducting official U.S. policy when he threatened to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to force Ukraine to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, the country’s equivalent of the American attorney general.
"At the time the threat was made in December 2015, Shokin’s office was conducting an increasingly aggressive corruption investigation into Burisma Holdings, an energy firm the State Department deemed to have been engaged in bribery and that employed Hunter Biden and paid him millions while his father was vice president."
*****
At the time Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption, the company was paying Hunter Biden and Archer, $83,333 a month as board members.
“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 recounted in the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
___________________________________________________________________
Seems to me Bribery is a sure thing.
There is a pervasive pattern of behavior of Joe using either his office, or the perks of his office for the benefit of his immediate family. Simply flying Hunter to China on Air Force 2 gives a clear indication to the Chinese that Hunter is operating with Joe’s approval. Things like that happened over and over again, shell companies that do nothing but shuffle money around to obscure its source without producing anything to justify the presence of the money in the first place. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action and the Bidens are well into double digits of suspicious activities over recent years.Maybe. But Burisma asking Hunter to intervene for them is not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you can prove the Biden unethically or illegally used his title/office to do something that benefitted Hunter or himself. I don't know there's evidence for that. An accusation is not evidence most especially when it is made by a politically motivated person or persons.
I want hard evidence before I will unequivocally pronounce somebody guilty. Having contempt for a person or rumors or propaganda or wanting something to be true just isn't enough. I want MAGAs/Patriots/Republicans/the good guys to not fall prey to group think but to always look for the verifiable facts.
I do hope investigators, both professional and amateur, keep digging and keep the pressure on though because we no longer have a media we can count on to do that.
But you only have clear audio/video of Biden confessing to his massive crime - surely you don’t consider THAT evidence?New memos undercut Biden-Ukraine narrative Democrats sold during 2019 impeachment scandal
Newly disclosed State Department memos conflict with the narrative Democrats crafted since 2019 impeachment.
"Just weeks before then-Vice President Joe Biden took the opposite action in late 2015, a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department officials declared that Ukraine had made adequate progress on anti-corruption reforms and deserved a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee, according to government memos that conflict with the narrative Democrats have sustained since the 2019 impeachment scandal."
*****
The recommendation...directly conflict{s} with the long-held narrative that Biden was conducting official U.S. policy when he threatened to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to force Ukraine to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, the country’s equivalent of the American attorney general.
"At the time the threat was made in December 2015, Shokin’s office was conducting an increasingly aggressive corruption investigation into Burisma Holdings, an energy firm the State Department deemed to have been engaged in bribery and that employed Hunter Biden and paid him millions while his father was vice president."
*****
At the time Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption, the company was paying Hunter Biden and Archer, $83,333 a month as board members.
“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 recounted in the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
___________________________________________________________________
Seems to me Bribery is a sure thing.
