So what did Burisma get in return for their multi-million $$ investment in Hunter? Can you name something? Perhaps it was something else that Joe could provide assistance. We are all supposed to believe that Hunter was paid and exorbitant salary and made many millions on top of that salary for influencing absolutely nothing. Common sense tells you that he was paid his salary at Burisma and was given many millions from other countrise for an actual reason, not just becuase his last name was Biden. They expected something in return, otherwise, there is no point.
I'm sorry, but do you think that a few million dollars is an "exorbitant" expense to Burisma? I don't think you understand how little a few million matters to wealthy oligarchs.
They got a name. That's what I said.
Maybe it is your news that censors you? Again, you believe the MSM because you have been conditioned to believe that they are unbiased, which is the utterly laughable.
In a letter dated June 9, 2015, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland wrote "We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government" in a letter that was delivered to the prosecutor two days.
Nuland wrote that "Secretary Kerry asked me to reply on his behalf" to let Shokin know "he enjoyed the full support of the United States as he set out to fight endemic corruption in the former Soviet republic," Just The News wrote.
"The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement, and the judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner," Nuland added. "The United States fully supports your government's efforts to fight corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair and transparent manner."
This letter was sent just six months before Biden began a pressure campaign to remove Shokin in December 2015, and appears to conflict with testimony given to Congress, Republican congressional investigators and Trump's former impeachment defense lawyers say.
State Department memos contradict Democrats’ Ukraine impeachment narrative
I've seen this many times, so no it isn't censored.
For starters, you'll notice how actually doesn't praise Shokin. It praises his "government". It actually says that over and over again that it's "your government" that is making the effort. That's because the government was passing laws to reform the historically corrupt prosecutor office and needed Shokin to follow through.
Second, notice how this letter is dated in June 2015. That is well before the actual decision to oust Shokin in November and December. This might come as a shock to you, but even if they did support Shokin in June (when he was on the job for a few months), things can
change in the course of 6 months. The letter says "as you set out to fight endemic corruption", which implies that he hasn't done anything yet, as he is just "setting out".
If you read Victoria Nuland's testimony, you'd learn that things did indeed go bad in the latter half of the year and they lost confidence in Shokin by the fall/winter.
This is what I mean that you are clinging to bits and scraps in an effort to craft a narrative. You make this letter out to be a big deal when you can twist it to fit your narrative that you already have, but it doesn't back you up at all. You take one letter and run with it, ignoring everything else that contradicts it.
You think you would be able to find someone in the government that would be able to say that Shokin was doing a good job, but you don't have that. It's a huge problem for you because you are ignoring the far more likely story because it's inconvenient.
