Debunking the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory

[AntonToo]

No, they are all swamp creatures. Beholding only to the swamp.

They are Republicans, it's a simple fact.

You are just another fringe ass nutbag unable to deal with it.

 

[scruffy]

They are Republicans, it's a simple fact.

You are just another fringe ass nutbag unable to deal with it.

Stupid fucking leftards.

Look at this. ^^^

This is how totally fucking stupid leftards are. "They are Republicans". lol

Hey stupid fucking leftard, read my.lips: GET RID OF THEM. I dont give a rat's ass what party they CLAIM to be attached to.

It is THIS ^^^ kind of brain dead "thinking" that's causing America's descent into abject stupidity.

 

[AntonToo]

Stupid fucking leftards.

Look at this. ^^^

This is how totally fucking stupid leftards are. "They are Republicans". lol

Hey stupid fucking leftard, read my.lips: GET RID OF THEM. I dont give a rat's ass what party they CLAIM to be attached to.

It is THIS ^^^ kind of brain dead "thinking" that's causing America's descent into abject stupidity.

So according to you lifelong Republicans nominated to their DOJ posts by a Republican president named Trump are....not Republicans?

You seriously belive anyone half sane is buying that nonsense? Trump cult got you so mindfucked that you don't even know up from down.

 

[Rumpole]

quoting someone as dumb as you son, is no way to go thru life

Incompetent rebuttal; ad homs have no argumentative value

 

[scruffy]

So according to you lifelong Republicans nominated to their DOJ posts by a Republican president named Trump are....not Republicans?

You seriously belive anyone half sane is buying that nonsense? Trump cult got you so mindfucked that you don't even know up from down.

Boy, you have shit for brains.

You're too stupid to even get the point.

Wake me up when you grow a brain cell.

 

[Rumpole]

Shell companies ARE prima facie evidence of a crime.

False. Simple logic disproves it. If that were true then they would be illegal, but, they are not. While shell companies can be associated with illegal activities, their existence alone does not automatically prove criminal behavior. A shell company is a legitimate business entity that may be created for various reasons, including privacy, tax planning, or asset protection. However, certain individuals or organizations may abuse shell companies for illegal purposes, such as money laundering, fraud, or tax evasion. But, that determination of fact requires corroborative evidence, as in 'direct' evidence.

To determine if a crime has occurred, additional evidence and investigation are necessary. The use of shell companies may raise suspicion and prompt further scrutiny, but it does not serve as conclusive proof of criminal activity. Authorities and legal systems typically require a thorough examination of financial records, transactions, and other relevant evidence to establish criminal culpability.

SARS by themselves are indeed not evidence, they are merely an indicator.

they are not merely an indicator. they are only a basis for further investigation.

However, the vast number of them IS evidence of wrondoing.

False. A large quantity of SARs alone does not necessarily constitute evidence of a crime. SARs are financial reports submitted by financial institutions to regulatory authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the United States, when they suspect or detect unusual or potentially illicit activities.

SARs serve as alerts or flags for authorities to investigate further and determine if a crime has occurred. They provide valuable information about potentially suspicious transactions, but they do not serve as direct evidence of criminal activity. SARs provide authorities with leads for potential investigations, allowing them to analyze patterns, gather additional evidence, and build a case if warranted.

It's important to understand that SARs are filed based on suspicion or the detection of potentially suspicious activities, which may or may not lead to the discovery of criminal behavior. Therefore, the mere existence of a large quantity of SARs does not prove that a crime has been committed. Subsequent investigations and legal processes are necessary to determine the veracity of the suspicions and establish evidence of criminal activity.

So, where is THAT evidence? Where is the corroborative evidence? You have none.

So, you have debunked nothing.

You have proven nothing

Instead, your arguments consist of large numbers of "uh uh", "I know you are but what am I", and outright ignoring of factual evidence of wrongdoing.

You'd have a point if you have direct evidence of wrong doing. but since you don't, your point is meaningless.

That exposes you as the intellectually dishonest, and intellectual lightweight that you truly are.

No, it exposes you has not having a clue as to what constitutes direct evidence.

 

[Leo123]

False. Simple logic disproves it. If that were true then they would be illegal, but, they are not. While shell companies can be associated with illegal activities, their existence alone does not automatically prove criminal behavior. A shell company is a legitimate business entity that may be created for various reasons, including privacy, tax planning, or asset protection. However, certain individuals or organizations may abuse shell companies for illegal purposes, such as money laundering, fraud, or tax evasion. But, that determination of fact requires corroborative evidence, as in 'direct' evidence.

To determine if a crime has occurred, additional evidence and investigation are necessary. The use of shell companies may raise suspicion and prompt further scrutiny, but it does not serve as conclusive proof of criminal activity. Authorities and legal systems typically require a thorough examination of financial records, transactions, and other relevant evidence to establish criminal culpability.

they are not merely an indicator. they are only a basis for further investigation.

False. A large quantity of SARs alone does not necessarily constitute evidence of a crime. SARs are financial reports submitted by financial institutions to regulatory authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the United States, when they suspect or detect unusual or potentially illicit activities.

SARs serve as alerts or flags for authorities to investigate further and determine if a crime has occurred. They provide valuable information about potentially suspicious transactions, but they do not serve as direct evidence of criminal activity. SARs provide authorities with leads for potential investigations, allowing them to analyze patterns, gather additional evidence, and build a case if warranted.

It's important to understand that SARs are filed based on suspicion or the detection of potentially suspicious activities, which may or may not lead to the discovery of criminal behavior. Therefore, the mere existence of a large quantity of SARs does not prove that a crime has been committed. Subsequent investigations and legal processes are necessary to determine the veracity of the suspicions and establish evidence of criminal activity.

So, where is THAT evidence? Where is the corroborative evidence? You have none.

You have proven nothing

You'd have a point if you have direct evidence of wrong doing. but since you don't, your point is meaningless.

No, it exposes you has not having a clue as to what constitutes direct evidence.

Shell companies don't have employees, aren't traded, make no money and do not provide customers with products and services. They are usually associated with criminal enterprise. This is how they do it.

"The whistleblower claims that the Burisma executive told him that he had “paid” the Bidens through intricate shell companies so that investigators would not be able to “unravel this for at least 10 years.” The whistleblower claims that Joe and Hunter Biden both received $5 million payments."

Whistleblower Claims Biden as VP Received $5 Million ‘Bribe’ From Burisma, Where Hunter Was a Board Member

For weeks, congressional Republicans have been trying to gain access to the document.

www.nysun.com

 

[bripat9643]

They are Republicans, it's a simple fact.

You are just another fringe ass nutbag unable to deal with it.

Being Republican doesn't mean you aren't a swamp creature, you fucking moron. That's the whole reason Trump was elected, precisely because of swamp creatures like Session, Bill Barr,

There is no corrupt activity, or is there any proof of it.


Dems are stupid? Repubs elected the most corrupt, fraudulent, criminal president in history.

Now that makes a lot of sense! Hah!

The banks have documented all the criminal activity, you fucking douchebag.

Biden is the most corrupt criminal fraudulent president in history. Trump hasn't broken a single law, even though the Dim shave been trying to imprison him for 6 years.

 

[AntonToo]

Boy, you have shit for brains.

You're too stupid to even get the point.

Wake me up when you grow a brain cell.

The point that is that you insane enough to deny that Trump's AG's Sessions , Rosen and Barr were Republicans.

Or will you now try to deny that?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Incompetent rebuttal; ad homs have no argumentative value

What, are you the pope around here?

 

[westwall]

False. Simple logic disproves it. If that were true then they would be illegal, but, they are not. While shell companies can be associated with illegal activities, their existence alone does not automatically prove criminal behavior. A shell company is a legitimate business entity that may be created for various reasons, including privacy, tax planning, or asset protection. However, certain individuals or organizations may abuse shell companies for illegal purposes, such as money laundering, fraud, or tax evasion. But, that determination of fact requires corroborative evidence, as in 'direct' evidence.

To determine if a crime has occurred, additional evidence and investigation are necessary. The use of shell companies may raise suspicion and prompt further scrutiny, but it does not serve as conclusive proof of criminal activity. Authorities and legal systems typically require a thorough examination of financial records, transactions, and other relevant evidence to establish criminal culpability.

they are not merely an indicator. they are only a basis for further investigation.

False. A large quantity of SARs alone does not necessarily constitute evidence of a crime. SARs are financial reports submitted by financial institutions to regulatory authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the United States, when they suspect or detect unusual or potentially illicit activities.

SARs serve as alerts or flags for authorities to investigate further and determine if a crime has occurred. They provide valuable information about potentially suspicious transactions, but they do not serve as direct evidence of criminal activity. SARs provide authorities with leads for potential investigations, allowing them to analyze patterns, gather additional evidence, and build a case if warranted.

It's important to understand that SARs are filed based on suspicion or the detection of potentially suspicious activities, which may or may not lead to the discovery of criminal behavior. Therefore, the mere existence of a large quantity of SARs does not prove that a crime has been committed. Subsequent investigations and legal processes are necessary to determine the veracity of the suspicions and establish evidence of criminal activity.

So, where is THAT evidence? Where is the corroborative evidence? You have none.

You have proven nothing

You'd have a point if you have direct evidence of wrong doing. but since you don't, your point is meaningless.

No, it exposes you has not having a clue as to what constitutes direct evidence.

Yeah, I have proven beyond doubt that you are intellectually dishonest.

 

[bripat9643]

The point that is that you insane enough to deny that Trump's AG's Sessions , Rosen and Barr were Republicans.

Or will you now try to deny that?

No one's denying that, you worthless turd. It's simply nor relevant. They are all deepstate tools. Swamp creatures like them are the reason Trump got elected.

 

[AntonToo]

No one's denying that, you worthless turd. It's simply nor relevant. They are all deepstate tools. Swamp creatures like them are the reason Trump got elected.

This conspiratorial bullshit you've just posted only flies with you fellow rightwing nutters.

Barr didn't go along with Trump's criminal electoral schemes, that doesn't make him "deep state", it makes him smart. It failed miserably because there wasn't serious ecidence and Barr still has his law license unlike idiots like Rudy.

He clearly says Trump's handling of classified documents is reprehensible, and very likely criminal - that just makes him in touch with reality, something you certainly won't get accused of.

 

[bripat9643]

This conspiratorial bullshit you've just posted only flies with you fellow rightwing nutters.

Barr didn't go along with Trump's criminal electoral schemes, that doesn't make him "deep state", it makes him smart. It failed miserably because there wasn't serious ecidence and Barr still has his law license unlike idiots like Rudy.

He clearly says Trump's handling of classified documents is reprehensible, and very likely criminal - that just makes him in touch with reality, something you certainly won't get accused of.

Barr proved that he's a groveling imbecile. You posted the usual lies. I don't know why anyone bothers to read your posts.

 

[BackAgain]

DumpHole is having another meltdown.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, I have proven beyond doubt that you are intellectually dishonest.

The excessively windy ones most often are.

 

[westwall]

The excessively windy ones most often are.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[keepitreal]

The US government, along with the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, believed the prosecutor to be corrupt and ineffective and too lenient in investigating companies and oligarchs, including Burisma and its owner.

Uh huh...yep, the Ukrainian parliament amended standing legislation which stipulated, 10 years of work experience in the field and a law degree WERE REQUIRED to even BE CONSIDERED for a GP position, so they could replace Shokin with a politician, who didn't go to law school, who had no law degree and NEVER tried a case in a courtroom....and who would EFFECTIVELY prosecute corrupt government officials... He's a solid guy - FJB

And, who was one of the lead attorneys that represented MZ/Burisma and succeeded in, not only, having all remaining cases closed, but made it so that no legal proceedings could be renewed any time in the future....
Former Assistant Attorney General under Obama, John Buretta

Your ignorance is staggering

 

[westwall]

Uh huh...yep, the Ukrainian parliament amended standing legislation which stipulated, 10 years of work experience in the field and a law degree WERE REQUIRED to even BE CONSIDERED for a GP position, so they could replace Shokin with a politician, who didn't go to law school, who had no law degree and NEVER tried a case in a courtroom....and who would EFFECTIVELY prosecute corrupt government officials... He's a solid guy - FJB

And, who was one of the lead attorneys that represented MZ/Burisma and succeeded in, not only, having all remaining cases closed, but made it so that no legal proceedings could be renewed any time in the future....
Former Assistant Attorney General under Obama, John Buretta

Your ignorance is staggering

He's not ignorant. He's a paid propagandist.

 

[Rumpole]

Uh huh...yep, the Ukrainian parliament amended standing legislation which stipulated, 10 years of work experience in the field and a law degree WERE REQUIRED to even BE CONSIDERED for a GP position, so they could replace Shokin with a politician, who didn't go to law school, who had no law degree and NEVER tried a case in a courtroom....and who would EFFECTIVELY prosecute corrupt government officials... He's a solid guy - FJB

And, who was one of the lead attorneys that represented MZ/Burisma and succeeded in, not only, having all remaining cases closed, but made it so that no legal proceedings could be renewed any time in the future....
Former Assistant Attorney General under Obama, John Buretta

Your ignorance is staggering

Please source your claims.

In the meantime.....

While it is true that there were changes in the Ukrainian parliament regarding the qualifications for the position of General Prosecutor (GP) and the removal of Viktor Shokin, the claims made in the response you provided require further context and clarification.

It is important to note that the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory falsely alleges that Joe Biden engaged in corrupt activities in relation to his son's involvement with Burisma. There is no credible evidence to support these claims.

Regarding the changes in the requirements for the GP position, it is true that the Ukrainian parliament amended legislation pertaining to the qualifications. However, the purpose of these changes was to address concerns about corruption and inefficiency in the Ukrainian legal system. The intention was to appoint a prosecutor who would effectively combat corruption, rather than to replace Shokin specifically to protect corrupt officials.

It is also worth noting that the decision to remove Shokin was supported by numerous international actors, including the United States government, European Union, International Monetary Fund, and anticorruption activists in Ukraine. They expressed concerns about Shokin's failure to effectively prosecute corruption cases.

As for John Buretta, the claim that he represented Burisma and successfully closed all remaining cases and prevented future legal proceedings is incorrect. John Buretta did work as a consultant for Burisma in 2014 and provided advice on corporate compliance matters. However, his role did not involve representing Burisma in legal cases or closing ongoing investigations. The notion that he single-handedly closed all cases and prevented future proceedings is a misrepresentation of his involvement.

Your information appears to come from a journalist named John Solomon, who, once upon a time, was a decent journalist. But as this article in www.thehill.com shows at the end of the article, Solomon's facts are disputed, and, as of late, Solomon's work has noticeably declined in caliber and quality.

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents – many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles – conflict with Joe Biden’s nar…

thehill.com

Disputing Solomon at the end of the article:

Editor’s note: Blue Star Strategies, the U.S. public relations firm cited in the column, has subsequently disputed several of the column’s contentions. Blue Star CEO Karen Tramontano said that the company’s engagement by Burisma and its contacts with Ukrainian officials began in November 2015, four months before the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, and that Blue Star’s statements to Ukrainian prosecutors were mischaracterized as apologizing for U.S. officials’ statements. She said that Blue Star did not compensate a Ukrainian embassy employee “while he was employed by the Ukrainian government.” The company does not have a board of directors, she said, and Hunter Biden “was never employed by or worked with Blue Star Strategies.” She added, “Hunter Biden has never had any financial interest or governance role in Blue Star Strategies, LLC.” Tramontano acknowledges Solomon did reach out to her for comment, but she chose not to speak to him.

____________

This column links to a Sept. 4, 2019 affidavit by Shokin that was made at the request of lawyers representing Dimitry Firtash. According to media reports, Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing represented Firtash at that time. DiGenova and Toensing have long represented Solomon, according to diGenova and Solomon. Solomon didn’t disclose that diGenova and Toensing represented him at the time of this column.

____________

The U.S., the European Union and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists pushed for the ouster of Shokin; the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Shokin in 2016.

____________

In the fall of 2019, Yuriy Lutsenko, who succeeded Shokin, said the Bidens did not violate Ukrainian laws.