Former Ukrainian Prosecutor: ‘No Doubt’ Joe Biden Forced Me Out to Protect Hunter Biden

[Faun]

Which is why I didn't say it was closed. I said Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.

Which means there was no quid pro quo.

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

Incorrect but don’t let that stop you(it never does anyway)

Both of those are facts your denials can't wish away.

Zelensky told Trumo he would have a new prosecutor in September to look into Trump's "favors." It's I the phone call transcript.

And trump released the funds on September 11th....


Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say

Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information — a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11.

 

[WEATHER53]

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

Incorrect but don’t let that stop you(it never does anyway)

Both of those are facts your denials can't wish away.

Zelensky told Trumo he would have a new prosecutor in September to look into Trump's "favors." It's I the phone call transcript.

And trump released the funds on September 11th....


Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say

Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information — a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11.

You all operate from a persistent delusion that if something is not found then it Must be a cover up rather than the far more mentally astute reality that it simply does not, and never did, exist to begin with.
That then permeates into All of your emotion driven mistakes.

 

[Faun]

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

Incorrect but don’t let that stop you(it never does anyway)

Both of those are facts your denials can't wish away.

Zelensky told Trumo he would have a new prosecutor in September to look into Trump's "favors." It's I the phone call transcript.

And trump released the funds on September 11th....


Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say

Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information — a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11.

You all operate from a persistent delusion that if something is not found then it Must be a cover up rather than the far more mentally astute reality that it simply does not, and never did, exist to begin with.
That then permeates into All of your emotion driven mistakes.

You're fucking demented.

Who said nothing is found? I just proved to you what I said is indeed factual.

 

[Andylusion]

Which means the investigation was not closed. If it was closed, then it wouldn't be 'dormant'.

Additionally, I don't know why you keep bringing up "the international community".

The "international community" has a problem with corruption in the Ukraine right now. Trump's call transcript, shows he talked for the vast majority of the call, about general corruption.

So if your excuse for Biden is "the international community", then our excuse for Trump is "the international community".

We're talking about was there an illegal act, such as a quid pro quo. Biden... clear quid pro quo, by his own words.

Trump... not so much.

Which is why I didn't say it was closed. I said Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.

Which means there was no quid pro quo.

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

When you say things like this, that are clearly contradicted by the facts.... that's why we never believe you with anything you have against Trump.

 

[Care4all]

Which means the investigation was not closed. If it was closed, then it wouldn't be 'dormant'.

Additionally, I don't know why you keep bringing up "the international community".

The "international community" has a problem with corruption in the Ukraine right now. Trump's call transcript, shows he talked for the vast majority of the call, about general corruption.

So if your excuse for Biden is "the international community", then our excuse for Trump is "the international community".

We're talking about was there an illegal act, such as a quid pro quo. Biden... clear quid pro quo, by his own words.

Trump... not so much.

Which is why I didn't say it was closed. I said Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.

Which means there was no quid pro quo.

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

AND 3 days ago, the ukraine opened a new investigation, and made the newspaper announcement, as diplomats said was required

quid pro quo

signed, sealed and delivered

 

[Faun]

Which is why I didn't say it was closed. I said Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.

Which means there was no quid pro quo.

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

When you say things like this, that are clearly contradicted by the facts.... that's why we never believe you with anything you have against Trump.

Why do you think I care if someone as nutty as you doesn't believe me. While you idiotically claim what I posted is contrary to the facts, the reality is, everything I said is factual and backed up with documentation. You can't cite one thing I posted that I can't back up.

 

[Andylusion]

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

When you say things like this, that are clearly contradicted by the facts.... that's why we never believe you with anything you have against Trump.

Why do you think I care if someone as nutty as you doesn't believe me. While you idiotically claim what I posted is contrary to the facts, the reality is, everything I said is factual and backed up with documentation. You can't cite one thing I posted that I can't back up.

Well you are posting to me, like I care....

Ironically your entire Jessie Smollett party, doesn't matter to me either.

 

[Andylusion]

Which is why I didn't say it was closed. I said Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.

Which means there was no quid pro quo.

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

"The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you"."The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Trump gained nothing. He released the money, without them investigating Biden.

You have the right to wrong, but it doesn't change the facts, just because you want to believe it.

Trump had Zelensky's commitment he would look into it. Zelensky told him he would assign a new prosecutor to the case in September. September 11th, Trump gives Zelensky $391 million.

AND 3 days ago, the ukraine opened a new investigation, and made the newspaper announcement, as diplomats said was required

quid pro quo

signed, sealed and delivered

So weeks later? After the money has been given? Retroactive quid pro quo? Not convincing.

Remember, Obama asked other governments to investigate Trump. Just he didn't tie money to it.

That's fine.

Trump didn't tie money to it. That's fine. By your own standards.

As long as money isn't tied to it, you have no problem asking foreign governments to investigate political opponents. Trump didn't tie money to it. The money was given, without any guarantee. I'm good with that.

 

[protectionist]

Trump campaign says you are clueless and will spend $1 million dollars in political TV ads against Biden in early voting primary states.

Obviously they are afraid of him the most.

Trump campaign to drop bomb on Biden in early voting states

SOP. Ho hum

 

[protectionist]

Biden was acting on the behalf of the United States. He gained nothing personally from it. That is not a crime.

Trump personally gained from it by attempting to tarnish a rival candidate. Which is why Trump engaged his own personal attorney to subvert official channels of communication with Ukraine's president.

Biden and his son are amoral opportunist$$ who couldn't care less about America and the American people. This is demonstrated by their attachment to the Democrat Party, long devoted to organizing and financing the importation of foreign workers, stealing Americans' jobs, and remittance-robbing America's economy, among a list of other harms.

Trump did nothing about any candidate. He asked about improprieties committed by the Bidens, and act of protectionism of America, which he would be remiss to have not done.

Ho hum.[/QUOTE]

 

[protectionist]

Poor, senile gramps. You're throwing shit like a monkey. You're not proving crimes took place.

Doesn't matter if crimes took place or not. The corruption showed by the Bidens here is disgusting, and the fact that the Demonrats would even think about having this guy run for president, is an disgrace to America. After running Hillary Clinton though ( a mass murderer), and having the jihadist Obama, even Biden's filthy candidacy seems clean, by comparison.

 

[protectionist]

Trumptard, he was allowed to do that. He ess acting on behalf of the United States. The only thing that would make that illegal is if he did it to benefit himself or his son; and as you've demonstrated through your utter failure to prove, you have no evidence he or his son personally profited.

Hunter got that job 2 years before his dad had Shokin sacked and 1 year before Shokin became Ukraine's General Prosecutor. Those events couldn't be more unrelated. And getting a job based on his father being VP is not a crime. They hired him for his name to bolster their image and give off the appearance they had strong ties to the U.S.. A conflict of interest at worst but not a crime.

So you admit that the Biden threat (which had NOTHING to do with the USA) is OK with you and Democrats. In November 2020, you'll see how unhinged that viewpoint is, when you look at the reddest map of the US you've ever seen.

As for profitted, Hunter was getting over $50,000/month just to be Biden's son. You don't call that "profitted" ? But then you're a Democrat, so lying is expected.

FOOL! It doesn't matter WHEN Hunter got the job. Shokin is just a guy who came along later. The fix was already there like you said, 2 years earlier. All the more Biden corruption.

You openly show/admit your acceptance of this disgrace >> "getting a job based on his father being VP is not a crime." You're just as bad as the Bidens themselves. Pure proof that we can never allow any Demonrat to ever become POTUS again.

:Lastly, you keep harping about "a crime". Biden is running for POTUS. He has to be free of more than just crime, and he isn't. The American people will have their say in November 2020, and the Democrats are probably dumb enough to have Biden be their candidate. Won't matter, Whether it's Pocahontas, Bernie Fife, or Quid Pro Joe. the election map will be bright RED.

 

[busybee01]

What is clear is the Trump quid pro quo.

What is clear is the Biden quid pro JOE.

What is clear is that you are a corrupt lying weasel,

Dude, we can see Joe Biden, openly and directly bragging that he made a quid pro quo, and got what he wanted.
There is nothing lying about it.

He said nothing about a quip pro quo. Obama and Biden have a duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not lost to corruption.

 

[busybee01]

What crime did he commit?

KICKBACK

Joe Biden scores $1 bil for Ukraine, and $3 mil gets KICKED BACK to Hunter for NOTHING....

So you say. Get some evidence of illegality and then talk.

 

[busybee01]

No, I am not accusing Biden of doing what Trump did.

Biden was threatening to hold money unless the Ukraine president sacked a corrupt prosecutor who several countries and international bodies wanted out. That served the United States.

Trump held money unless the Ukraine president agreed to investigate Trump's political rival. That served Trump.

But Trump never said the money would be held until Ukraine agreed.... Ukraine did not agree.... and the money was given without any investigation into Biden.

Biden DID say the money would be held until a prosecutor was fired, who happen to be investigating a company his corrupt drug addicted son was being paid $50,000 a month, without any credentials to be a board member of.... the money was in fact withheld.... the Prosecutor was fired, and only then was the money given.

"But Trump never said the money would be held until Ukraine agreed.... Ukraine did not agree.... and the money was given without any investigation into Biden."

Trump's actions spoke for him. He held up the money. The Ukraine president did agree to investigate. And then Trump released the money.


"Biden DID say the money would be held until a prosecutor was fired, who happen to be investigating a company his corrupt drug addicted son was being paid $50,000 a month, without any credentials to be a board member of.... the money was in fact withheld.... the Prosecutor was fired, and only then was the money given."

That's not true. There was no active investigation...

Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens

Back in March 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to address corruption and remove its Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, who soon after left office amid widespread calls for his dismissal. Though Shokin had begun a probe into Burisma, it was dormant when he departed, according to a former prosecutor.​

Did Biden know specifically that there was no investigation? Dormant, does not mean ended. It means dormant. The probe had started.

You can stop with that loser argument.

Prove Ukraine agreed to investigate Hunter Biden.

I read the phone transcript word for word. I did not see such a response.

LOL

Dormant .... means Shokin wasn't actively investigating.

And the international community who wanted him thrown out wanted that because he wasn't making a concerted effort to fight corruption.

Which means the investigation was not closed. If it was closed, then it wouldn't be 'dormant'.

Additionally, I don't know why you keep bringing up "the international community".

The "international community" has a problem with corruption in the Ukraine right now. Trump's call transcript, shows he talked for the vast majority of the call, about general corruption.

So if your excuse for Biden is "the international community", then our excuse for Trump is "the international community".

We're talking about was there an illegal act, such as a quid pro quo. Biden... clear quid pro quo, by his own words.

Trump... not so much.

Absolutely nothing illegal. Trump has threatened to withhold aid as well. You seem to have no problem with that.

 

[Faun]

Trumptard, he was allowed to do that. He ess acting on behalf of the United States. The only thing that would make that illegal is if he did it to benefit himself or his son; and as you've demonstrated through your utter failure to prove, you have no evidence he or his son personally profited.

Hunter got that job 2 years before his dad had Shokin sacked and 1 year before Shokin became Ukraine's General Prosecutor. Those events couldn't be more unrelated. And getting a job based on his father being VP is not a crime. They hired him for his name to bolster their image and give off the appearance they had strong ties to the U.S.. A conflict of interest at worst but not a crime.

So you admit that the Biden threat (which had NOTHING to do with the USA) is OK with you and Democrats. In November 2020, you'll see how unhinged that viewpoint is, when you look at the reddest map of the US you've ever seen.

As for profitted, Hunter was getting over $50,000/month just to be Biden's son. You don't call that "profitted" ? But then you're a Democrat, so lying is expected.

FOOL! It doesn't matter WHEN Hunter got the job. Shokin is just a guy who came along later. The fix was already there like you said, 2 years earlier. All the more Biden corruption.

You openly show/admit your acceptance of this disgrace >> "getting a job based on his father being VP is not a crime." You're just as bad as the Bidens themselves. Pure proof that we can never allow any Demonrat to ever become POTUS again.

:Lastly, you keep harping about "a crime". Biden is running for POTUS. He has to be free of more than just crime, and he isn't. The American people will have their say in November 2020, and the Democrats are probably dumb enough to have Biden be their candidate. Won't matter, Whether it's Pocahontas, Bernie Fife, or Quid Pro Joe. the election map will be bright RED.

"So you admit that the Biden threat (which had NOTHING to do with the USA)"

That's as far as I got into your diatribe to see you don't have a clue of what you're talking about. And since that's bullshit, there was no point in reading on since I guessing everything after is bullshit too.

 

[busybee01]

Poor, senile gramps. You're throwing shit like a monkey. You're not proving crimes took place.

Doesn't matter if crimes took place or not. The corruption showed by the Bidens here is disgusting, and the fact that the Demonrats would even think about having this guy run for president, is an disgrace to America. After running Hillary Clinton though ( a mass murderer), and having the jihadist Obama, even Biden's filthy candidacy seems clean, by comparison.

No evidence of corruption. You are the disgusting one. Biden is far more honest than corrupt Donald Trump. Trump gets money from Turkey and nothing from the Kurds so the Turks can commit atrocities against the Kurds. Saudi Arabia gets away with killing a American and get American troops and by coincidence Trump has a business relationship with Saudi Arabia. You can't get more corrupt than that.

 

[ph3iron]

A former Ukrainian prosecutor general is speaking out after Vice President Joe Biden forced him out of his job. Speaking to ABC News, former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin said he has “no doubt” Biden wanted him gone to help protect Hunter Biden’s employer.

At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings while Biden’s son Hunter was on the board earning as much as $50,000 a month.

“Biden was acting not like a U.S. vice president, but as an individual,” he said to ABC News, “like the individual interested in having me removed — having me gone so that I did not interfere in the Burisma investigation.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

But did Trump TALK to the PM about this blatant corruption by the current DemonRAT presidential front runner....which is more important to AMERICANS TO KNOW???

Too dumb to know Biden was preventing corruption.?
If his son was corrupt he would be for keeping a corrupt prosecuter?
No prob with girls Chinese patents?
DemonRAT (must have the CAPS for our rubes)
SO Stupid.
Zero college I presume

 

[busybee01]

Trumptard, he was allowed to do that. He ess acting on behalf of the United States. The only thing that would make that illegal is if he did it to benefit himself or his son; and as you've demonstrated through your utter failure to prove, you have no evidence he or his son personally profited.

Hunter got that job 2 years before his dad had Shokin sacked and 1 year before Shokin became Ukraine's General Prosecutor. Those events couldn't be more unrelated. And getting a job based on his father being VP is not a crime. They hired him for his name to bolster their image and give off the appearance they had strong ties to the U.S.. A conflict of interest at worst but not a crime.

So you admit that the Biden threat (which had NOTHING to do with the USA) is OK with you and Democrats. In November 2020, you'll see how unhinged that viewpoint is, when you look at the reddest map of the US you've ever seen.

As for profitted, Hunter was getting over $50,000/month just to be Biden's son. You don't call that "profitted" ? But then you're a Democrat, so lying is expected.

FOOL! It doesn't matter WHEN Hunter got the job. Shokin is just a guy who came along later. The fix was already there like you said, 2 years earlier. All the more Biden corruption.

You openly show/admit your acceptance of this disgrace >> "getting a job based on his father being VP is not a crime." You're just as bad as the Bidens themselves. Pure proof that we can never allow any Demonrat to ever become POTUS again.

:Lastly, you keep harping about "a crime". Biden is running for POTUS. He has to be free of more than just crime, and he isn't. The American people will have their say in November 2020, and the Democrats are probably dumb enough to have Biden be their candidate. Won't matter, Whether it's Pocahontas, Bernie Fife, or Quid Pro Joe. the election map will be bright RED.

Obama and Biden had a duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not lost due to corruption. The head of the IMF said the same thing. Worth noting that Trump has threatened to withhold funds as well. He used the same excuse to withhold funding from Ukraine. In Nov 2020, the map will be blue. That is the reason for the attacks on Biden. If Biden didn't worry Trump and his supporters you would not be attacking Biden.

Hunter Biden was getting $50,000 for sitting on Burisma's board. What laws did he violate?

The timeline is important FOOL. The case into Burisma had been closed even before Hunter Biden joined the board. Since there was no investigation then Biden could not have been protecting his son. Hunter Biden was never under investigation and a former prosecutor says Hunter Biden broke no Ukrainian laws. Also worth noting that Hunter Biden was on the board until he resigned from the board this year. Nearly 3 years after Joe Biden left office. If he was on the board to influence his father then he would have been removed after Biden left office.

The fact is Trump is mired in corruption. Trump apparently uses our foreign policy to enrich his pockets. He gets over $1 million dollars from Turkey and nothing from the Kurds. So Turkey is allowed to slaughter the Kurds. Trump then talks about bringing troops home and then sends them to Saudi Arabia which is another country he has a business relationship. That is corruption in its highest form. Suburban voters especially women will bury Trump in 2020. Even Texas Republicans admit Trump will have to spend time and money in Texas.

 

[busybee01]

"But Trump never said the money would be held until Ukraine agreed.... Ukraine did not agree.... and the money was given without any investigation into Biden."

Trump's actions spoke for him. He held up the money. The Ukraine president did agree to investigate. And then Trump released the money.


"Biden DID say the money would be held until a prosecutor was fired, who happen to be investigating a company his corrupt drug addicted son was being paid $50,000 a month, without any credentials to be a board member of.... the money was in fact withheld.... the Prosecutor was fired, and only then was the money given."

That's not true. There was no active investigation...

Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens

Back in March 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to address corruption and remove its Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, who soon after left office amid widespread calls for his dismissal. Though Shokin had begun a probe into Burisma, it was dormant when he departed, according to a former prosecutor.​

Did Biden know specifically that there was no investigation? Dormant, does not mean ended. It means dormant. The probe had started.

You can stop with that loser argument.

Prove Ukraine agreed to investigate Hunter Biden.

I read the phone transcript word for word. I did not see such a response.

LOL

Dormant .... means Shokin wasn't actively investigating.

And the international community who wanted him thrown out wanted that because he wasn't making a concerted effort to fight corruption.

Which means the investigation was not closed. If it was closed, then it wouldn't be 'dormant'.

Additionally, I don't know why you keep bringing up "the international community".

The "international community" has a problem with corruption in the Ukraine right now. Trump's call transcript, shows he talked for the vast majority of the call, about general corruption.

So if your excuse for Biden is "the international community", then our excuse for Trump is "the international community".

We're talking about was there an illegal act, such as a quid pro quo. Biden... clear quid pro quo, by his own words.

Trump... not so much.

Which is why I didn't say it was closed. I said Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma when he was fired.

Which means there was no quid pro quo.

What??? The only thing that is required for a quid pro quo, is a "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you".

The quid pro quo was .... fire that guy, and I'll give you money. Did that happen? Yes it did.

Now you can argue that possible..... POSSIBLY.... that this did not directly benefit Hunter Biden.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, that POSSIBLY.... this was not done specifically to help Hunter.

However, there is no more, and no less evidence against Biden, than their is Trump. There is no more evidence to suggest Trump had a quid pro quo, than Biden.

That's where my rub comes. I am honestly open to the possibility that Joe had no more of an interest than getting rid of a bad prosecutor. I'm open to that. However, there was a clear quid pro quo. It might have been a purely innocent quid pro quo, but it was a quid pro quo. You fire that guy, and I give you money. You don't, and I won't.

And I equally think that Trump was merely concerned about corruption. And I think he only mentioned that Biden was bragging he got the prosecutor removed, because it looked bad to Trump. And it does look bad. The news when this happened was all over the place about how it looked bad.... because it does.

See that's the difference between you and me. I am looking at this objectively.... and you are looking at this as a mindless partisan. That's why you can watch a video of Biden saying directly that he held up the money until a prosecutor was fired, and then say "see! no quid pro quo!".

You say you are looking at this objectively but you are not. There was no quid pro quo for Biden as he did not profit from it. The fact is that the head of the IMF expressed the same reservations as Biden expressed in Ukraine over turning money over to Ukraine with a corrupt prosecutor in charge. Trump on the other hand wanted the Ukraine to investigate Biden and withheld money before the phone call/.