Hunter Biden investigation moves forward in Senate.

[Muhammed]

Do you have a subscription to the economist?

I don't give a dime to fake news organizations.

So you just chose to remain ignorant?

No, you choose to be addicted to grape kool-aid. Crude leftist disinformation.

I provided legitimate sources from a variety of political viewpoints. The Economist is economic libertarian. The WSJ is conservative. Foreign Policy is classic liberal. These are as legitimate as they get.

That's nothing but your stupid opinion and ridiculous categorizations.

What you don't ever present is a reasoned rational logical argument.

Why don't you? Frankly....what sources do you provide to back up your jabber? All you seem to add to the argument is ridiculous trolling comments about grape koo-aid.

Links to my sources are here...

Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.

Rule #1:No off topic posts. July 21, 2009: Joe Biden meets with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev. Statement by Vice President Biden After Meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine December 22, 2009: Joe Biden speaks on the phone with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Ttmoshenko...

www.usmessageboard.com

A lot of stuff there. Enough to at the very least warrant an investigation. There was an investigation of Burisma, and Shokin wanted all of their board members to be interviewed, including Hunter, but then... "sonofabitch"...Shokin got fired.

Then in a senior moment caught on live stream, Quid Pro Joe accidentally admitted that he got rid of Shokin via extortion.

 

[Ken Mac]

I can’t wait for the investigations into tbe Trump children

?? Why?

I am being sarcastic, but basically, there are allegations their business’ have benefited from the president which should be treated no differently than Hunter Biden.

One is the timing of Ivanka’s Chinese patents.

Trump's children take in millions overseas as president slams Biden's son

President Trump has called Democrat Joe Biden corrupt over his son's work in Ukraine while Biden was vice president. Three of Trump's own children have conducted a vast array of overseas businesses since he entered the White House.

www.latimes.com

On the same day Trump and his daughter dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in Florida in April 2017, China awarded her three preliminary trademark approvals for jewelry, handbags and spa services. In all, she has obtained more than a dozen Chinese trademarks since entering the White House, ensuring her access to the world’s second-largest economy if she goes back into business.

Other examples:

Exclusive: Kushner Firm Built the Coronavirus Website Trump Promised

The extent of Oscar Health’s work on coronavirus testing hasn’t been previously reported.

www.theatlantic.com

Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem - to the tune of $90m | Vicky Ward

Since Kushner entered the White House, a firm he founded has received over $90m in foreign funds. The public has a right to know the sources

www.theguardian.com

There is more there than with the Bidens at this time but it is ignored.

You didn't even read your first link. She has 16 trademarks of which the large majority were awarded prior to 2017. She has 30 more pending. She is registering them as a defensive posture to ripoffs using her name/brand. None of this has anything to do with her father being president and all to do with the Trump brand.

What a load of crap you're throwing against the wall.

You think? Sure is interesting timing.

More approvals are likely to come. Online records from China’s trademark office indicate that Ivanka Trump’s company last applied for trademarks — 17 of them — on March 28, 2017, the day before she took on a formal role at the White House. Those records on Monday showed at least 25 Ivanka Trump trademarks pending review, 36 active marks and eight with provisional approval.​

Ivanka Trump won lucrative Chinese trademarks the same day she dined with China’s president

The timing raises yet another round of ethics questions.

qz.com

At US president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on April 6, Ivanka Trump—the president’s daughter, and now officially an advisor—joined in on a dinner of steak and Dover sole with Chinese president Xi Jinping. It was part of a widely publicized summit where trade cooperation between China and the US was a main topic of discussion.​

​

On the same day, according to a new report by the AP, China’s government granted Ivanka Trump’s brand provisional approval for three new trademarks that, as the AP put it, give it “monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world’s second-largest economy.”​

From your article:

The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant,” Abigail Klem, president of Ivanka Trump’s brand, said in an email. “We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark

 

[Cellblock2429]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

/——/ Where was your fake outrage when the Trump kids were attacked by the left?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the fourth year of trumps presidency, six months before the election, Republicans start attacking Biden’s surviving’s son.

don’t they know that leaves the Democrats with the right to check into trumps children of the corn?

for instance, how does Ivanka have 34 Chinese trademarks?

that’s only the first question I want to know.

170 countries in the world yet Hunter lands a $1,000,000/year Board seat on a Ukrainian company only 3 week after Born in Kenya Barack appoints Quid Pro Joe to oversee the Ukraine

 

[colfax_m]

Do you have a subscription to the economist?

I don't give a dime to fake news organizations.

So you just chose to remain ignorant?

No, you choose to be addicted to grape kool-aid. Crude leftist disinformation.

I provided legitimate sources from a variety of political viewpoints. The Economist is economic libertarian. The WSJ is conservative. Foreign Policy is classic liberal. These are as legitimate as they get.

That's nothing but your stupid opinion and ridiculous categorizations.

What you don't ever present is a reasoned rational logical argument.

Why don't you? Frankly....what sources do you provide to back up your jabber? All you seem to add to the argument is ridiculous trolling comments about grape koo-aid.

Links to my sources are here...

Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.

Rule #1:No off topic posts. July 21, 2009: Joe Biden meets with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev. Statement by Vice President Biden After Meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine December 22, 2009: Joe Biden speaks on the phone with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Ttmoshenko...

www.usmessageboard.com

A lot of stuff there. Enough to at the very least warrant an investigation. There was an investigation of Burisma, and Shokin wanted all of their board members to be interviewed, including Hunter, but then... "sonofabitch"...Shokin got fired.

Then in a senior moment caught on live stream, Quid Pro Joe accidentally admitted that he got rid of Shokin via extortion.

Absolutely no evidence to support an active investigation of Burisma.

 

[Coyote]

I can’t wait for the investigations into tbe Trump children

?? Why?

I am being sarcastic, but basically, there are allegations their business’ have benefited from the president which should be treated no differently than Hunter Biden.

One is the timing of Ivanka’s Chinese patents.

Trump's children take in millions overseas as president slams Biden's son

President Trump has called Democrat Joe Biden corrupt over his son's work in Ukraine while Biden was vice president. Three of Trump's own children have conducted a vast array of overseas businesses since he entered the White House.

www.latimes.com

On the same day Trump and his daughter dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in Florida in April 2017, China awarded her three preliminary trademark approvals for jewelry, handbags and spa services. In all, she has obtained more than a dozen Chinese trademarks since entering the White House, ensuring her access to the world’s second-largest economy if she goes back into business.

Other examples:

Exclusive: Kushner Firm Built the Coronavirus Website Trump Promised

The extent of Oscar Health’s work on coronavirus testing hasn’t been previously reported.

www.theatlantic.com

Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem - to the tune of $90m | Vicky Ward

Since Kushner entered the White House, a firm he founded has received over $90m in foreign funds. The public has a right to know the sources

www.theguardian.com

There is more there than with the Bidens at this time but it is ignored.

You didn't even read your first link. She has 16 trademarks of which the large majority were awarded prior to 2017. She has 30 more pending. She is registering them as a defensive posture to ripoffs using her name/brand. None of this has anything to do with her father being president and all to do with the Trump brand.

What a load of crap you're throwing against the wall.

You think? Sure is interesting timing.

More approvals are likely to come. Online records from China’s trademark office indicate that Ivanka Trump’s company last applied for trademarks — 17 of them — on March 28, 2017, the day before she took on a formal role at the White House. Those records on Monday showed at least 25 Ivanka Trump trademarks pending review, 36 active marks and eight with provisional approval.​

Ivanka Trump won lucrative Chinese trademarks the same day she dined with China’s president

The timing raises yet another round of ethics questions.

qz.com

At US president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on April 6, Ivanka Trump—the president’s daughter, and now officially an advisor—joined in on a dinner of steak and Dover sole with Chinese president Xi Jinping. It was part of a widely publicized summit where trade cooperation between China and the US was a main topic of discussion.​

​

On the same day, according to a new report by the AP, China’s government granted Ivanka Trump’s brand provisional approval for three new trademarks that, as the AP put it, give it “monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world’s second-largest economy.”​

From your article:

The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant,” Abigail Klem, president of Ivanka Trump’s brand, said in an email. “We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark

And?

The timing sure is interesting...

 

[Coyote]

Do you have a subscription to the economist?

I don't give a dime to fake news organizations.

So you just chose to remain ignorant?

No, you choose to be addicted to grape kool-aid. Crude leftist disinformation.

I provided legitimate sources from a variety of political viewpoints. The Economist is economic libertarian. The WSJ is conservative. Foreign Policy is classic liberal. These are as legitimate as they get.

That's nothing but your stupid opinion and ridiculous categorizations.

What you don't ever present is a reasoned rational logical argument.

Why don't you? Frankly....what sources do you provide to back up your jabber? All you seem to add to the argument is ridiculous trolling comments about grape koo-aid.

Links to my sources are here...

Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.

Rule #1:No off topic posts. July 21, 2009: Joe Biden meets with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev. Statement by Vice President Biden After Meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine December 22, 2009: Joe Biden speaks on the phone with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Ttmoshenko...

www.usmessageboard.com

A lot of stuff there. Enough to at the very least warrant an investigation. There was an investigation of Burisma, and Shokin wanted all of their board members to be interviewed, including Hunter, but then... "sonofabitch"...Shokin got fired.

Then in a senior moment caught on live stream, Quid Pro Joe accidentally admitted that he got rid of Shokin via extortion.

Absolutely no evidence to support an active investigation of Burisma.

The most that can be said is that Hunter's position on the board gives the appearance of a conflict of interest for the Bidens, and it does - bad optics. But there has been no actual evidence to support any actual conflict of interest to date.

Just for comparison - this is also what Trump faces, but on a much larger scale since he did not divest from any of his business' and his children have active roles within his administration. Bad optics. Maybe more.

 

[Ken Mac]

I can’t wait for the investigations into tbe Trump children

?? Why?

I am being sarcastic, but basically, there are allegations their business’ have benefited from the president which should be treated no differently than Hunter Biden.

One is the timing of Ivanka’s Chinese patents.

Trump's children take in millions overseas as president slams Biden's son

President Trump has called Democrat Joe Biden corrupt over his son's work in Ukraine while Biden was vice president. Three of Trump's own children have conducted a vast array of overseas businesses since he entered the White House.

www.latimes.com

On the same day Trump and his daughter dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in Florida in April 2017, China awarded her three preliminary trademark approvals for jewelry, handbags and spa services. In all, she has obtained more than a dozen Chinese trademarks since entering the White House, ensuring her access to the world’s second-largest economy if she goes back into business.

Other examples:

Exclusive: Kushner Firm Built the Coronavirus Website Trump Promised

The extent of Oscar Health’s work on coronavirus testing hasn’t been previously reported.

www.theatlantic.com

Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem - to the tune of $90m | Vicky Ward

Since Kushner entered the White House, a firm he founded has received over $90m in foreign funds. The public has a right to know the sources

www.theguardian.com

There is more there than with the Bidens at this time but it is ignored.

You didn't even read your first link. She has 16 trademarks of which the large majority were awarded prior to 2017. She has 30 more pending. She is registering them as a defensive posture to ripoffs using her name/brand. None of this has anything to do with her father being president and all to do with the Trump brand.

What a load of crap you're throwing against the wall.

You think? Sure is interesting timing.

More approvals are likely to come. Online records from China’s trademark office indicate that Ivanka Trump’s company last applied for trademarks — 17 of them — on March 28, 2017, the day before she took on a formal role at the White House. Those records on Monday showed at least 25 Ivanka Trump trademarks pending review, 36 active marks and eight with provisional approval.​

Ivanka Trump won lucrative Chinese trademarks the same day she dined with China’s president

The timing raises yet another round of ethics questions.

qz.com

At US president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on April 6, Ivanka Trump—the president’s daughter, and now officially an advisor—joined in on a dinner of steak and Dover sole with Chinese president Xi Jinping. It was part of a widely publicized summit where trade cooperation between China and the US was a main topic of discussion.​

​

On the same day, according to a new report by the AP, China’s government granted Ivanka Trump’s brand provisional approval for three new trademarks that, as the AP put it, give it “monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world’s second-largest economy.”​

From your article:

The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant,” Abigail Klem, president of Ivanka Trump’s brand, said in an email. “We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark

And?

The timing sure is interesting...

Sure is interesting. Maybe she was trying to remove any conflict of interest? I have no problem with her doing it the day before. She obviously saw a need to protect her investment.

 

[Muhammed]

Do you have a subscription to the economist?

I don't give a dime to fake news organizations.

So you just chose to remain ignorant?

No, you choose to be addicted to grape kool-aid. Crude leftist disinformation.

I provided legitimate sources from a variety of political viewpoints. The Economist is economic libertarian. The WSJ is conservative. Foreign Policy is classic liberal. These are as legitimate as they get.

That's nothing but your stupid opinion and ridiculous categorizations.

What you don't ever present is a reasoned rational logical argument.

Why don't you? Frankly....what sources do you provide to back up your jabber? All you seem to add to the argument is ridiculous trolling comments about grape koo-aid.

Links to my sources are here...

Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.

Rule #1:No off topic posts. July 21, 2009: Joe Biden meets with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev. Statement by Vice President Biden After Meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine December 22, 2009: Joe Biden speaks on the phone with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Ttmoshenko...

www.usmessageboard.com

A lot of stuff there. Enough to at the very least warrant an investigation. There was an investigation of Burisma, and Shokin wanted all of their board members to be interviewed, including Hunter, but then... "sonofabitch"...Shokin got fired.

Then in a senior moment caught on live stream, Quid Pro Joe accidentally admitted that he got rid of Shokin via extortion.

Absolutely no evidence to support an active investigation of Burisma.

The most that can be said is that Hunter's position on the board gives the appearance of a conflict of interest for the Bidens, and it does - bad optics.

If it was "bad optics" that gave the appearance of being an obvious conflict of interests, then why didn't Biden recuse himself from playing ambassador to Ukraine (not his job) and just go back to doing his official job?

That would have been a lot easier, albeit less lucrative for Hunter.

WTF?

 

[westwall]

In the fourth year of trumps presidency, six months before the election, Republicans start attacking Biden’s surviving’s son.

don’t they know that leaves the Democrats with the right to check into trumps children of the corn?

If they had anything to be looked into I can assure you your party would have done it by now.

The Dems have only had one year of any sort of control regarding investigations and there is conflict on whether to pursue that sort of route and I get it. A precedent was set by going after Hunter Biden, going after Trump's children is continuing that precedent.

Pro's and Con's

Pelosi thinks it's ok because they have official roles in the White House, including sitting in on official meetings and briefings - that's been pretty unheard of since the Kennedy family nepotism.

“They are advisers to the president. They have security clearance,” Pelosi said. “This is not [Trump’s] children at home.”

But other Democrats express strong reservations.

In public and private, Democrats see potential pitfalls in dragging Trump's adult children into their political squabbles with the president. So even as they ramp up their investigations into Trump, senior Democrats are reluctant to scrutinize Trump's adult children too much as part of their sprawling probes into Trump's administration, campaign and business empire.​

This has been a precedent-setting past 4 years, and not in a good way. How do you determine who or what should or should not be investigated in relation to a president or candidate?

Try again. Even when they didn't have control of the House they controlled almost everything else. The repubs never issued a single subpoena. They were either complicit with what the dems were doing, or incompetent.

 

[Shrimpbox]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

You are really comparing trump to hunter Biden. A cocaine sniffing hound dog who won’t pay for his own kid and is quite literally a waste. The tds is strong in this one.

As compared to a man who cheated on his pregnant wife.

As compared to a man who was nailing his newly widowed brothers wife?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

In the Wrestle Mania voice..."Let's Get Ready to Manufacture Some Evidence!!"

 

[basquebromance]

let's investigate Trump and his family and his business and his administration and his tax records but heaven forbid we investigate Hunter B!

 

[busybee01]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

It certainly appears that he was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme to get a prosecutor fired on behalf of Burisma. And it involved $1 billion of US taxpayer money.

That did not happen.

You can prove this?

Talk to the State Dept. They wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him.

Got any evidence of that? Biden was the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine. Why the VP? Hmmm.....

Ukraine was a big point on their foreign policy. Putting Biden in charge gave it additional weight.

George Kent’s testimony before Congress lays out exactly why the State Dept was sick of Shokin. It lays out why they wanted him removed.

Not really. He simply made unfounded accusations. Wanted Shokin to ignore his oath of office and violate peoples' rights. He refused to do the Obama administration's corrupt bidding.

And you are dodging the question. You said that the State Department wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him. Got any proof of that?

Yeah. George Kent’s testimony.

What they wanted Shokin to do was to let the anti-corruption bureau root out the massive corruption in his office. That’s not violating civil rights. That’s helping Ukraine become a functional democracy.

If they wanted to root out massive corruption why would they install Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption, never went to law school, and had recently got out of prison early at the behest of Hunter's fellow Burisma director?

How does that work to eliminate corruption? Shokin was never even charged with corruption and Biden's "solid guy" had recently got out of prison for corruption and is currently wanted on more corruption charges.

Both you and I know that Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden is a corrupt piece of shit.

Biden didn't install Lutsenko.

Right. Quid Pro Joe merely held back a $1 billion US treasury backed loan guarantee, which was tied to $30 billion in other loans, until Ukraine changed their law requiring the PG to have a law degree and appointed Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.




He installed his puppet into the PG office via extortion.

Show me where Biden demanded anyone specifically be appointed PG.

Biden: Well, I’m on Air Force Two and think we are going to stay connected. We just took off and I’m hoping this connection will stay open. [connection interrupted…] Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars. Again, I’m not suggesting that that’s what you want or don’t want. I’m just suggesting that that’s what we are prepared to do. And again, it wouldn’t be finalized until, you know, the IMF pieces are written.

Poroshenko: Extremely strong motivation. One of the possible candidates was leader of my fraction – Lutsenko, who is the public figure. If you think that the political motivated figure would be not very good from your point of view, I recall this proposal. I do not propose, because nobody knows that I want to propose Lutsenko. In this situation I take all the political motivated figures out from this process.

Biden: All right, well, look, let me, let me, when you and I finish speaking, let me huddle with my team, talk over what you and I just talked about. I agree with you, there is a sense of urgency here.

Poroshenko offered to withdrawal the corrupt Lutsenko as a candidate, but Biden obviously approved of him.

After all, Lutsenko owed Burisma a "solid" because they got him out of prison early which is obviously what Biden meant when he said Lutsenko was "solid".

Biden: Well, let me, let me get in contact with the Justice Department and pursue that. I’ll get his name. And let me find out where that is, because it is in our interest, obviously, to provide professional assistance as quick as we can. So this gets up and started it in the right direction. So I will move on as soon as we hang up. I’ll put that in train and I’ll get back to you as to what we are, what I am able to do.

Poroshenko: Absolutely. Second.. Thank you very much indeed, that is exactly what I’m looking for. The second thing is that I want to thank you that you give me your word that immediately when we change the legislation and I appoint the new Prosecutor General, and it would be Yuriy Lutsenko as we agreed on our previous meeting in Washington and when it happen, we can have this loan guarantee and thank you very much…

Poroshenko picked Lutsenko. Not the other way around, as your transcript demonstrates.

...only with Biden's approval, as the transcript indicates.

Biden was the ultimate authority over it, obviously. Without his approval, they don't get the fucking money.

Are you dense?

Not dense. You’re a liar. You claimed that Biden installed someone and then demonstrated that Poroshenko did the picking. Biden never made any demand about anyone being appointed.

You’re not being very honest because you’re shifting your position. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

Biden held the purse strings. It was his choice, you fucking idiot.

He let the purse strings loose for the corrupt Lutsenko.

Why are you desperately defending those scumbags?

Why are you desperately defending the scumbag Shokin?

Howso?

By claiming it could only be corrupt for Biden to want him fired.

When in fact Shokin was a corrupt scumbag that everyone interested in a good functioning justice system wanted gone.

I've already pointed out the FACT that Biden withheld the money after Shokin had been gone for quite some time.


Biden held the money back until he got a corrupt prosecutor who was beholden to Burisma installed.

How do you justify that?

When Lutsenko was appointed, what had he done that was corrupt?

Corruption in office, dumbass. He stole money from the people.

Stole money? Like, what, to buy a fancy car for himself or something?

Does it matter? Are you trying to minimize Lutsenko's corruption? Why?

It matters a lot. You believe Lutsenko is corrupt. Why?

Lutsenko is a convicted criminal. A former convict who is currently on the lam.

What makes you believe Shokin is corrupt?

(lemme guess derp duh derp derp Joe Biden said so..derp derp..

^The State Department, the world and ordinary Ukrainians say Shokin is corrupt.

 

[busybee01]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

It certainly appears that he was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme to get a prosecutor fired on behalf of Burisma. And it involved $1 billion of US taxpayer money.

That did not happen.

You can prove this?

Talk to the State Dept. They wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him.

Got any evidence of that? Biden was the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine. Why the VP? Hmmm.....

Ukraine was a big point on their foreign policy. Putting Biden in charge gave it additional weight.

George Kent’s testimony before Congress lays out exactly why the State Dept was sick of Shokin. It lays out why they wanted him removed.

Not really. He simply made unfounded accusations. Wanted Shokin to ignore his oath of office and violate peoples' rights. He refused to do the Obama administration's corrupt bidding.

And you are dodging the question. You said that the State Department wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him. Got any proof of that?

Yeah. George Kent’s testimony.

What they wanted Shokin to do was to let the anti-corruption bureau root out the massive corruption in his office. That’s not violating civil rights. That’s helping Ukraine become a functional democracy.

If they wanted to root out massive corruption why would they install Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption, never went to law school, and had recently got out of prison early at the behest of Hunter's fellow Burisma director?

How does that work to eliminate corruption? Shokin was never even charged with corruption and Biden's "solid guy" had recently got out of prison for corruption and is currently wanted on more corruption charges.

Both you and I know that Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden is a corrupt piece of shit.

Biden didn't install Lutsenko.

Right. Quid Pro Joe merely held back a $1 billion US treasury backed loan guarantee, which was tied to $30 billion in other loans, until Ukraine changed their law requiring the PG to have a law degree and appointed Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.




He installed his puppet into the PG office via extortion.

Show me where Biden demanded anyone specifically be appointed PG.

Biden: Well, I’m on Air Force Two and think we are going to stay connected. We just took off and I’m hoping this connection will stay open. [connection interrupted…] Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars. Again, I’m not suggesting that that’s what you want or don’t want. I’m just suggesting that that’s what we are prepared to do. And again, it wouldn’t be finalized until, you know, the IMF pieces are written.

Poroshenko: Extremely strong motivation. One of the possible candidates was leader of my fraction – Lutsenko, who is the public figure. If you think that the political motivated figure would be not very good from your point of view, I recall this proposal. I do not propose, because nobody knows that I want to propose Lutsenko. In this situation I take all the political motivated figures out from this process.

Biden: All right, well, look, let me, let me, when you and I finish speaking, let me huddle with my team, talk over what you and I just talked about. I agree with you, there is a sense of urgency here.

Poroshenko offered to withdrawal the corrupt Lutsenko as a candidate, but Biden obviously approved of him.

After all, Lutsenko owed Burisma a "solid" because they got him out of prison early which is obviously what Biden meant when he said Lutsenko was "solid".

Biden: Well, let me, let me get in contact with the Justice Department and pursue that. I’ll get his name. And let me find out where that is, because it is in our interest, obviously, to provide professional assistance as quick as we can. So this gets up and started it in the right direction. So I will move on as soon as we hang up. I’ll put that in train and I’ll get back to you as to what we are, what I am able to do.

Poroshenko: Absolutely. Second.. Thank you very much indeed, that is exactly what I’m looking for. The second thing is that I want to thank you that you give me your word that immediately when we change the legislation and I appoint the new Prosecutor General, and it would be Yuriy Lutsenko as we agreed on our previous meeting in Washington and when it happen, we can have this loan guarantee and thank you very much…

Poroshenko picked Lutsenko. Not the other way around, as your transcript demonstrates.

...only with Biden's approval, as the transcript indicates.

Biden was the ultimate authority over it, obviously. Without his approval, they don't get the fucking money.

Are you dense?

Not dense. You’re a liar. You claimed that Biden installed someone and then demonstrated that Poroshenko did the picking. Biden never made any demand about anyone being appointed.

You’re not being very honest because you’re shifting your position. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

Biden held the purse strings. It was his choice, you fucking idiot.

He let the purse strings loose for the corrupt Lutsenko.

Why are you desperately defending those scumbags?

Obama held the purse strings.

You are the one desperately defending scumbags.

 

[busybee01]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

It certainly appears that he was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme to get a prosecutor fired on behalf of Burisma. And it involved $1 billion of US taxpayer money.

That did not happen.

You can prove this?

Talk to the State Dept. They wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him.

Got any evidence of that? Biden was the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine. Why the VP? Hmmm.....

Ukraine was a big point on their foreign policy. Putting Biden in charge gave it additional weight.

George Kent’s testimony before Congress lays out exactly why the State Dept was sick of Shokin. It lays out why they wanted him removed.

Not really. He simply made unfounded accusations. Wanted Shokin to ignore his oath of office and violate peoples' rights. He refused to do the Obama administration's corrupt bidding.

And you are dodging the question. You said that the State Department wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him. Got any proof of that?

Yeah. George Kent’s testimony.

What they wanted Shokin to do was to let the anti-corruption bureau root out the massive corruption in his office. That’s not violating civil rights. That’s helping Ukraine become a functional democracy.

If they wanted to root out massive corruption why would they install Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption, never went to law school, and had recently got out of prison early at the behest of Hunter's fellow Burisma director?

How does that work to eliminate corruption? Shokin was never even charged with corruption and Biden's "solid guy" had recently got out of prison for corruption and is currently wanted on more corruption charges.

Both you and I know that Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden is a corrupt piece of shit.

Biden didn't install Lutsenko.

Right. Quid Pro Joe merely held back a $1 billion US treasury backed loan guarantee, which was tied to $30 billion in other loans, until Ukraine changed their law requiring the PG to have a law degree and appointed Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.




He installed his puppet into the PG office via extortion.

Show me where Biden demanded anyone specifically be appointed PG.

Biden: Well, I’m on Air Force Two and think we are going to stay connected. We just took off and I’m hoping this connection will stay open. [connection interrupted…] Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars. Again, I’m not suggesting that that’s what you want or don’t want. I’m just suggesting that that’s what we are prepared to do. And again, it wouldn’t be finalized until, you know, the IMF pieces are written.

Poroshenko: Extremely strong motivation. One of the possible candidates was leader of my fraction – Lutsenko, who is the public figure. If you think that the political motivated figure would be not very good from your point of view, I recall this proposal. I do not propose, because nobody knows that I want to propose Lutsenko. In this situation I take all the political motivated figures out from this process.

Biden: All right, well, look, let me, let me, when you and I finish speaking, let me huddle with my team, talk over what you and I just talked about. I agree with you, there is a sense of urgency here.

Poroshenko offered to withdrawal the corrupt Lutsenko as a candidate, but Biden obviously approved of him.

After all, Lutsenko owed Burisma a "solid" because they got him out of prison early which is obviously what Biden meant when he said Lutsenko was "solid".

Biden: Well, let me, let me get in contact with the Justice Department and pursue that. I’ll get his name. And let me find out where that is, because it is in our interest, obviously, to provide professional assistance as quick as we can. So this gets up and started it in the right direction. So I will move on as soon as we hang up. I’ll put that in train and I’ll get back to you as to what we are, what I am able to do.

Poroshenko: Absolutely. Second.. Thank you very much indeed, that is exactly what I’m looking for. The second thing is that I want to thank you that you give me your word that immediately when we change the legislation and I appoint the new Prosecutor General, and it would be Yuriy Lutsenko as we agreed on our previous meeting in Washington and when it happen, we can have this loan guarantee and thank you very much…

Poroshenko picked Lutsenko. Not the other way around, as your transcript demonstrates.

...only with Biden's approval, as the transcript indicates.

Biden was the ultimate authority over it, obviously. Without his approval, they don't get the fucking money.

Are you dense?

Not dense. You’re a liar. You claimed that Biden installed someone and then demonstrated that Poroshenko did the picking. Biden never made any demand about anyone being appointed.

You’re not being very honest because you’re shifting your position. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

Biden held the purse strings. It was his choice, you fucking idiot.

He let the purse strings loose for the corrupt Lutsenko.

Why are you desperately defending those scumbags?

Why are you desperately defending the scumbag Shokin?

Howso?

By claiming it could only be corrupt for Biden to want him fired.

When in fact Shokin was a corrupt scumbag that everyone interested in a good functioning justice system wanted gone.

I've already pointed out the FACT that Biden withheld the money after Shokin had been gone for quite some time.


Biden held the money back until he got a corrupt prosecutor who was beholden to Burisma installed.

How do you justify that?

That is so much garbage.

How do you justify it?

 

[Muhammed]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

It certainly appears that he was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme to get a prosecutor fired on behalf of Burisma. And it involved $1 billion of US taxpayer money.

That did not happen.

You can prove this?

Talk to the State Dept. They wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him.

Got any evidence of that? Biden was the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine. Why the VP? Hmmm.....

Ukraine was a big point on their foreign policy. Putting Biden in charge gave it additional weight.

George Kent’s testimony before Congress lays out exactly why the State Dept was sick of Shokin. It lays out why they wanted him removed.

Not really. He simply made unfounded accusations. Wanted Shokin to ignore his oath of office and violate peoples' rights. He refused to do the Obama administration's corrupt bidding.

And you are dodging the question. You said that the State Department wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him. Got any proof of that?

Yeah. George Kent’s testimony.

What they wanted Shokin to do was to let the anti-corruption bureau root out the massive corruption in his office. That’s not violating civil rights. That’s helping Ukraine become a functional democracy.

If they wanted to root out massive corruption why would they install Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption, never went to law school, and had recently got out of prison early at the behest of Hunter's fellow Burisma director?

How does that work to eliminate corruption? Shokin was never even charged with corruption and Biden's "solid guy" had recently got out of prison for corruption and is currently wanted on more corruption charges.

Both you and I know that Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden is a corrupt piece of shit.

Biden didn't install Lutsenko.

Right. Quid Pro Joe merely held back a $1 billion US treasury backed loan guarantee, which was tied to $30 billion in other loans, until Ukraine changed their law requiring the PG to have a law degree and appointed Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.




He installed his puppet into the PG office via extortion.

Show me where Biden demanded anyone specifically be appointed PG.

Biden: Well, I’m on Air Force Two and think we are going to stay connected. We just took off and I’m hoping this connection will stay open. [connection interrupted…] Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars. Again, I’m not suggesting that that’s what you want or don’t want. I’m just suggesting that that’s what we are prepared to do. And again, it wouldn’t be finalized until, you know, the IMF pieces are written.

Poroshenko: Extremely strong motivation. One of the possible candidates was leader of my fraction – Lutsenko, who is the public figure. If you think that the political motivated figure would be not very good from your point of view, I recall this proposal. I do not propose, because nobody knows that I want to propose Lutsenko. In this situation I take all the political motivated figures out from this process.

Biden: All right, well, look, let me, let me, when you and I finish speaking, let me huddle with my team, talk over what you and I just talked about. I agree with you, there is a sense of urgency here.

Poroshenko offered to withdrawal the corrupt Lutsenko as a candidate, but Biden obviously approved of him.

After all, Lutsenko owed Burisma a "solid" because they got him out of prison early which is obviously what Biden meant when he said Lutsenko was "solid".

Biden: Well, let me, let me get in contact with the Justice Department and pursue that. I’ll get his name. And let me find out where that is, because it is in our interest, obviously, to provide professional assistance as quick as we can. So this gets up and started it in the right direction. So I will move on as soon as we hang up. I’ll put that in train and I’ll get back to you as to what we are, what I am able to do.

Poroshenko: Absolutely. Second.. Thank you very much indeed, that is exactly what I’m looking for. The second thing is that I want to thank you that you give me your word that immediately when we change the legislation and I appoint the new Prosecutor General, and it would be Yuriy Lutsenko as we agreed on our previous meeting in Washington and when it happen, we can have this loan guarantee and thank you very much…

Poroshenko picked Lutsenko. Not the other way around, as your transcript demonstrates.

...only with Biden's approval, as the transcript indicates.

Biden was the ultimate authority over it, obviously. Without his approval, they don't get the fucking money.

Are you dense?

Not dense. You’re a liar. You claimed that Biden installed someone and then demonstrated that Poroshenko did the picking. Biden never made any demand about anyone being appointed.

You’re not being very honest because you’re shifting your position. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

Biden held the purse strings. It was his choice, you fucking idiot.

He let the purse strings loose for the corrupt Lutsenko.

Why are you desperately defending those scumbags?

Why are you desperately defending the scumbag Shokin?

Howso?

By claiming it could only be corrupt for Biden to want him fired.

When in fact Shokin was a corrupt scumbag that everyone interested in a good functioning justice system wanted gone.

I've already pointed out the FACT that Biden withheld the money after Shokin had been gone for quite some time.


Biden held the money back until he got a corrupt prosecutor who was beholden to Burisma installed.

How do you justify that?

When Lutsenko was appointed, what had he done that was corrupt?

Corruption in office, dumbass. He stole money from the people.

Stole money? Like, what, to buy a fancy car for himself or something?

Does it matter? Are you trying to minimize Lutsenko's corruption? Why?

It matters a lot. You believe Lutsenko is corrupt. Why?

Lutsenko is a convicted criminal. A former convict who is currently on the lam.

What makes you believe Shokin is corrupt?

(lemme guess derp duh derp derp Joe Biden said so..derp derp..

^The State Department, the world and ordinary Ukrainians say Shokin is corrupt.

When were you appointed to be the spokesman for ordinary Ukrainians and the world? Oh that's right, you weren't.

You're a fucking nothing, jackass.

 

[Norman]

Do you have a subscription to the economist?

I don't give a dime to fake news organizations.

So you just chose to remain ignorant?

No, you choose to be addicted to grape kool-aid. Crude leftist disinformation.

I provided legitimate sources from a variety of political viewpoints. The Economist is economic libertarian. The WSJ is conservative. Foreign Policy is classic liberal. These are as legitimate as they get.

That's nothing but your stupid opinion and ridiculous categorizations.

What you don't ever present is a reasoned rational logical argument.

Why don't you? Frankly....what sources do you provide to back up your jabber? All you seem to add to the argument is ridiculous trolling comments about grape koo-aid.

Links to my sources are here...

Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.

Rule #1:No off topic posts. July 21, 2009: Joe Biden meets with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev. Statement by Vice President Biden After Meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine December 22, 2009: Joe Biden speaks on the phone with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Ttmoshenko...

www.usmessageboard.com

A lot of stuff there. Enough to at the very least warrant an investigation. There was an investigation of Burisma, and Shokin wanted all of their board members to be interviewed, including Hunter, but then... "sonofabitch"...Shokin got fired.

Then in a senior moment caught on live stream, Quid Pro Joe accidentally admitted that he got rid of Shokin via extortion.

Absolutely no evidence to support an active investigation of Burisma.

The most that can be said is that Hunter's position on the board gives the appearance of a conflict of interest for the Bidens, and it does - bad optics. But there has been no actual evidence to support any actual conflict of interest to date.

Just for comparison - this is also what Trump faces, but on a much larger scale since he did not divest from any of his business' and his children have active roles within his administration. Bad optics. Maybe more.

What was bad optics is for democrats to impeach president Trump - the best in history - for what Biden did... one of the weakest candidates in history.

 

[busybee01]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

It certainly appears that he was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme to get a prosecutor fired on behalf of Burisma. And it involved $1 billion of US taxpayer money.

That did not happen.

You can prove this?

Talk to the State Dept. They wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him.

Got any evidence of that? Biden was the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine. Why the VP? Hmmm.....

Ukraine was a big point on their foreign policy. Putting Biden in charge gave it additional weight.

George Kent’s testimony before Congress lays out exactly why the State Dept was sick of Shokin. It lays out why they wanted him removed.

Not really. He simply made unfounded accusations. Wanted Shokin to ignore his oath of office and violate peoples' rights. He refused to do the Obama administration's corrupt bidding.

And you are dodging the question. You said that the State Department wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him. Got any proof of that?

Yeah. George Kent’s testimony.

What they wanted Shokin to do was to let the anti-corruption bureau root out the massive corruption in his office. That’s not violating civil rights. That’s helping Ukraine become a functional democracy.

If they wanted to root out massive corruption why would they install Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption, never went to law school, and had recently got out of prison early at the behest of Hunter's fellow Burisma director?

How does that work to eliminate corruption? Shokin was never even charged with corruption and Biden's "solid guy" had recently got out of prison for corruption and is currently wanted on more corruption charges.

Both you and I know that Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden is a corrupt piece of shit.

Biden didn't install Lutsenko.

Right. Quid Pro Joe merely held back a $1 billion US treasury backed loan guarantee, which was tied to $30 billion in other loans, until Ukraine changed their law requiring the PG to have a law degree and appointed Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.




He installed his puppet into the PG office via extortion.

Show me where Biden demanded anyone specifically be appointed PG.

Biden: Well, I’m on Air Force Two and think we are going to stay connected. We just took off and I’m hoping this connection will stay open. [connection interrupted…] Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars. Again, I’m not suggesting that that’s what you want or don’t want. I’m just suggesting that that’s what we are prepared to do. And again, it wouldn’t be finalized until, you know, the IMF pieces are written.

Poroshenko: Extremely strong motivation. One of the possible candidates was leader of my fraction – Lutsenko, who is the public figure. If you think that the political motivated figure would be not very good from your point of view, I recall this proposal. I do not propose, because nobody knows that I want to propose Lutsenko. In this situation I take all the political motivated figures out from this process.

Biden: All right, well, look, let me, let me, when you and I finish speaking, let me huddle with my team, talk over what you and I just talked about. I agree with you, there is a sense of urgency here.

Poroshenko offered to withdrawal the corrupt Lutsenko as a candidate, but Biden obviously approved of him.

After all, Lutsenko owed Burisma a "solid" because they got him out of prison early which is obviously what Biden meant when he said Lutsenko was "solid".

Biden: Well, let me, let me get in contact with the Justice Department and pursue that. I’ll get his name. And let me find out where that is, because it is in our interest, obviously, to provide professional assistance as quick as we can. So this gets up and started it in the right direction. So I will move on as soon as we hang up. I’ll put that in train and I’ll get back to you as to what we are, what I am able to do.

Poroshenko: Absolutely. Second.. Thank you very much indeed, that is exactly what I’m looking for. The second thing is that I want to thank you that you give me your word that immediately when we change the legislation and I appoint the new Prosecutor General, and it would be Yuriy Lutsenko as we agreed on our previous meeting in Washington and when it happen, we can have this loan guarantee and thank you very much…

Poroshenko picked Lutsenko. Not the other way around, as your transcript demonstrates.

...only with Biden's approval, as the transcript indicates.

Biden was the ultimate authority over it, obviously. Without his approval, they don't get the fucking money.

Are you dense?

Not dense. You’re a liar. You claimed that Biden installed someone and then demonstrated that Poroshenko did the picking. Biden never made any demand about anyone being appointed.

You’re not being very honest because you’re shifting your position. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

Biden held the purse strings. It was his choice, you fucking idiot.

He let the purse strings loose for the corrupt Lutsenko.

Why are you desperately defending those scumbags?

Why are you desperately defending the scumbag Shokin?

Howso?

By claiming it could only be corrupt for Biden to want him fired.

When in fact Shokin was a corrupt scumbag that everyone interested in a good functioning justice system wanted gone.

I've already pointed out the FACT that Biden withheld the money after Shokin had been gone for quite some time.


Biden held the money back until he got a corrupt prosecutor who was beholden to Burisma installed.

How do you justify that?

When Lutsenko was appointed, what had he done that was corrupt?

Corruption in office, dumbass. He stole money from the people.

Stole money? Like, what, to buy a fancy car for himself or something?

Does it matter? Are you trying to minimize Lutsenko's corruption? Why?

It matters a lot. You believe Lutsenko is corrupt. Why?

Lutsenko is a convicted criminal. A former convict who is currently on the lam.

What makes you believe Shokin is corrupt?

(lemme guess derp duh derp derp Joe Biden said so..derp derp..

^The State Department, the world and ordinary Ukrainians say Shokin is corrupt.

When were you appointed to be the spokesman for ordinary Ukrainians and the world? Oh that's right, you weren't.

You're a fucking nothing, jackass.

Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin "dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case."

Why Was Ukraine's Top Prosecutor Fired? The Issue At The Heart Of The Dispute Gripping Washington

U.S. President Donald Trump asserts that Joe Biden pushed for the ouster of Ukraine’s chief prosecutor to quash a probe into a Burisma, a gas company with Biden's son on its board. Officials and anti-corruption activists in Kyiv say Prosecutor-General Viktor Shokin had shelved the case long...

www.rferl.org

The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

EU hails sacking of Ukraineâs prosecutor Viktor Shokin

Political crisis continues as deals on a new coalition and premier prove elusive

www.irishtimes.com

For instance, in early 2016, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said that "it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue" unless corruption prosecutions accelerate.

Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow at Atlantic Council, a think tank in Washington, agreed that criticism of Shokin was widespread.

"Shokin was perceived as utterly corrupt and very close to President Poroshenko," Åslund said. "His corruption was exposed by his two young and obviously honest deputies" who were forced out.

Trump’s boasts about former Ukrainian prosecutor are false

President Donald Trump in a phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart repeatedly suggested that an ousted Ukrainian pros

www.politifact.com

You are the fucking jackass.

 

[Muhammed]

In other words we are going to harass a American citizen just because his father is running for President. He should fight this subpoena as his private records are just that. Private. Republicans are okay with Trump refusing to respect subpoenas but their overreaching subpoenas should be honored.

It certainly appears that he was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme to get a prosecutor fired on behalf of Burisma. And it involved $1 billion of US taxpayer money.

That did not happen.

You can prove this?

Talk to the State Dept. They wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him.

Got any evidence of that? Biden was the Obama administration's point man in Ukraine. Why the VP? Hmmm.....

Ukraine was a big point on their foreign policy. Putting Biden in charge gave it additional weight.

George Kent’s testimony before Congress lays out exactly why the State Dept was sick of Shokin. It lays out why they wanted him removed.

Not really. He simply made unfounded accusations. Wanted Shokin to ignore his oath of office and violate peoples' rights. He refused to do the Obama administration's corrupt bidding.

And you are dodging the question. You said that the State Department wanted Shokin gone before Biden ever heard of him. Got any proof of that?

Yeah. George Kent’s testimony.

What they wanted Shokin to do was to let the anti-corruption bureau root out the massive corruption in his office. That’s not violating civil rights. That’s helping Ukraine become a functional democracy.

If they wanted to root out massive corruption why would they install Lutsenko, who had recently served prison time for corruption, never went to law school, and had recently got out of prison early at the behest of Hunter's fellow Burisma director?

How does that work to eliminate corruption? Shokin was never even charged with corruption and Biden's "solid guy" had recently got out of prison for corruption and is currently wanted on more corruption charges.

Both you and I know that Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden is a corrupt piece of shit.

Biden didn't install Lutsenko.

Right. Quid Pro Joe merely held back a $1 billion US treasury backed loan guarantee, which was tied to $30 billion in other loans, until Ukraine changed their law requiring the PG to have a law degree and appointed Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.




He installed his puppet into the PG office via extortion.

Show me where Biden demanded anyone specifically be appointed PG.

Biden: Well, I’m on Air Force Two and think we are going to stay connected. We just took off and I’m hoping this connection will stay open. [connection interrupted…] Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars. Again, I’m not suggesting that that’s what you want or don’t want. I’m just suggesting that that’s what we are prepared to do. And again, it wouldn’t be finalized until, you know, the IMF pieces are written.

Poroshenko: Extremely strong motivation. One of the possible candidates was leader of my fraction – Lutsenko, who is the public figure. If you think that the political motivated figure would be not very good from your point of view, I recall this proposal. I do not propose, because nobody knows that I want to propose Lutsenko. In this situation I take all the political motivated figures out from this process.

Biden: All right, well, look, let me, let me, when you and I finish speaking, let me huddle with my team, talk over what you and I just talked about. I agree with you, there is a sense of urgency here.

Poroshenko offered to withdrawal the corrupt Lutsenko as a candidate, but Biden obviously approved of him.

After all, Lutsenko owed Burisma a "solid" because they got him out of prison early which is obviously what Biden meant when he said Lutsenko was "solid".

Biden: Well, let me, let me get in contact with the Justice Department and pursue that. I’ll get his name. And let me find out where that is, because it is in our interest, obviously, to provide professional assistance as quick as we can. So this gets up and started it in the right direction. So I will move on as soon as we hang up. I’ll put that in train and I’ll get back to you as to what we are, what I am able to do.

Poroshenko: Absolutely. Second.. Thank you very much indeed, that is exactly what I’m looking for. The second thing is that I want to thank you that you give me your word that immediately when we change the legislation and I appoint the new Prosecutor General, and it would be Yuriy Lutsenko as we agreed on our previous meeting in Washington and when it happen, we can have this loan guarantee and thank you very much…

Poroshenko picked Lutsenko. Not the other way around, as your transcript demonstrates.

...only with Biden's approval, as the transcript indicates.

Biden was the ultimate authority over it, obviously. Without his approval, they don't get the fucking money.

Are you dense?

Not dense. You’re a liar. You claimed that Biden installed someone and then demonstrated that Poroshenko did the picking. Biden never made any demand about anyone being appointed.

You’re not being very honest because you’re shifting your position. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

Biden held the purse strings. It was his choice, you fucking idiot.

He let the purse strings loose for the corrupt Lutsenko.

Why are you desperately defending those scumbags?

Why are you desperately defending the scumbag Shokin?

Howso?

By claiming it could only be corrupt for Biden to want him fired.

When in fact Shokin was a corrupt scumbag that everyone interested in a good functioning justice system wanted gone.

I've already pointed out the FACT that Biden withheld the money after Shokin had been gone for quite some time.


Biden held the money back until he got a corrupt prosecutor who was beholden to Burisma installed.

How do you justify that?

When Lutsenko was appointed, what had he done that was corrupt?

Corruption in office, dumbass. He stole money from the people.

Stole money? Like, what, to buy a fancy car for himself or something?

Does it matter? Are you trying to minimize Lutsenko's corruption? Why?

It matters a lot. You believe Lutsenko is corrupt. Why?

Lutsenko is a convicted criminal. A former convict who is currently on the lam.

What makes you believe Shokin is corrupt?

(lemme guess derp duh derp derp Joe Biden said so..derp derp..

^The State Department, the world and ordinary Ukrainians say Shokin is corrupt.

When were you appointed to be the spokesman for ordinary Ukrainians and the world? Oh that's right, you weren't.

You're a fucking nothing, jackass.

Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin "dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case."

^
AntAC is a George Soros and Obama administration funded rent-a-mob astroturf organization that Shokin was investigating for embezzlement, jackass.

Shokin did not drop the Burisma case, jackass. That's obviously why Biden wanted him eliminated.

You are not the spokesman for the Ukrainian people and the world, jackass.