If you do some research you can get this straight.
Translation: If you accept without question the DNC and MSM issued talking points as told, you will understand why Biden's actions as clearly seen and heard on recorded and published video really shows he is as pure as the driven snow and would never, never, ever ever ever ever ever ever do or say anything the entire world wasn't both in awe and support of. But but but but Trump bad.
However the underlying assertion is true. If you do some actual research and allow yourself to think for yourself, you can get this straight.
First, corruption and Ukraine were always tightly linked.
You say this as if the statement somehow serves to exonerate Biden from any criticism of his actions. However the logic you are attempting to promote amounts to nothing more than this: "Ukraine corrupt, therefore Biden good."
Here is the core of the issue. If what you say is true, that Joe Biden was Vice-President and appointed to "address" Ukrainian corruption at the time his son was hired by Burisma to do a job for which Biden's son had absolutely zero qualifications, then conflict of interest issue concerns would be the least worrying aspect of that hiring.
Ask yourself two logical questions. If there was nothing wrong here why, as reported by the
Washington Post, would John Kerry's stepson "believe(d) that joining the board of Burisma Holdings was a bad idea and ended his business relationship with Biden and another partner" in response to the event?
Why would Biden remain mute concerning the event and the obvious conflict of interest inherent in the fact his son was working for one of the very Ukrainian guys under investigation for abusing power and position as a "government official?"
But I know, I know, the answer to both of those questions is "Trump bad!"
I do find this interesting:
As noted biden was given the role to address this with Ukraine by administration instructions along with the support of NATO, EU, IMF, etc., and though he chose later to "brag" that was the task he was given.
This is always the claim, yet to date I have never seen anyone who makes it provide any actual evidence it is true. I found this in the same Washington Post article linked above, quote:
“Joe Biden proudly fought for reform in Ukraine and his achievement of a goal the U.S., EU, IMF, and entire Ukrainian anti-corruption community all strongly supported was a profound victory for good government there,” Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said in a statement."
Now we know why the claim Biden was as pure as the driven snow in regard to Ukraine must be true, especially according to NATO, the U.S., the EU, the Impossible Mission Force, and the entire Ukrainian Anti-Corruption League Marching Band. A spokesman for the Biden campaign said so.
Wow, who would ever have thought that? A spokesman for the Biden campaign being not only the underlying source but ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't true in regard to Biden.
From the Hill dot Com, quote:
"But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money."
Wow, the son of the Vice-President of the United States, who also happens to be in charge of "Cleanin' Up This Town!" in regard to Ukrainian corruption, is on the payroll of the very guys under investigation.
Commissioner Gordon: "Batman, is it true Robin is on the Board of Directors for one of the Joker's holding companies?"
Batman: "Ah, no comment, nothing to see here, this has been debunked by everyone! Because I'm Batman! Just ask the U.S., the EU, the Impossible Mission Force, and the entire Ukrainian Anti-Corruption League Marching Band!!"
There was no "quid pro quo" involved.
Talk about blind loyalty. By definition of the term "quid pro quo" there was an inherent "quid pro quo" in what Biden said.
Again, what Vice-President Biden said, on video mind, is exactly what the anti-Trump pro-impeachment crowd was desperate, desperate, to have found President Trump to have said to anyone anywhere at anytime. But the anti-Trump crowd could never find such a comment because Trump never made such a comment.
As for trump, though Ukraine had been given DOD clearance for achieving corruption benchmarks trump choose to withhold the congressionally approved funding. That is where the "quid pro quo" comes into the scenario... "I want you to do me a favor, though".
That is blatantly not true. President Trump did not say "I want you to do me a favor." He said "I want you to do us a favor" meaning the United States because he immediately followed that request with the term "our country."
This lie, and that is all it is, an outright deliberate lie, that President Trump asked for a personal favor by utilizing the term "me" has been exposed even in the halls of Congress, yet the anti-Trump crowd refuses to let go of it.
(As you are aware the transcript was "edited")
Another lie. There is nothing in the cautionary message attached to the transcript which states it was edited in any form in the manner you imply. The term "edited" does not even appear.
The image you are attempting to portray is that of a bunch of Trump loyalist rewriting the transcript just before releasing it in order to mask or eliminate the very silver bullet phrase the impeachment crowd was desperately searching for. However if you actually listened to the testimony of the parade of idiots which testified before the impeachment committee you would know that phrase was never there.
The Senate, lawyers such as dershowitz...
You do understand that Alan Dershowitz is neither a member of the Senate nor a Senate lawyer, yes?
...took the defense that the no quid pro quo was wrong and a lie however, it did not rise to either being illegal or impeachable.
I challenge you to provide the quote where Alan Dershowitz stated the no quid pro quo was a lie.
Therein lies the difference … one was given the responsibility to address a corrupt prosecutor...
And used that position as leverage to get his son paid by the very people he was supposedly charged to investigate hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to sit on a board and do nothing.
...and one choose to leverage an investigation into a political opponent.
Trump asked about Crowdstrike.
When it was learned the DNC servers had been hacked the Democrats in charge refused to allow the FBI to investigate. Instead, the DNC hired Crowdstrike, a third-party agency.
Can you imagine that? The FBI not allowed to investigate the very hacking into the DNC servers the Democrats would later go on to blame on Trump's supposed collusion with the Russians?
Again, neither the FBI nor any other federal agency was allowed to investigate how or why or who hacked the DNC servers. Instead they were forced to rely on a report generated by the Crowdstrike agency, a report the DNC commissioned and paid for.
Trump asked about that, and he was right to.
