Let's talk about Joe Biden getting Viktor Shokin fired

[DaisyDay]

You conveniently forgot Bidens son Hunter was criminally being investigated by Shokin "Why"?

Because that is a baldfaced lie.

Yes Biden used "Extortion" upon Ukraine, with the quid, pro, quo, fire Shokin or you don't receive the $Billion$ from the US

That, as you know, was US official policy. Biden personally got no quo.

You aren't going to change the facts, was Hunter Biden being criminally investigated by Shokin, 100% yes

Again, the same lie.

 

[Truth7t7]

Because that is a baldfaced lie.


That, as you know, was US official policy. Biden personally got no quo.


Again, the same lie.

No lie whatsoever, Hunter was a board director of Burisma, and this Ukranian company was being investigated by Shokin

Did Burisma ask Hunter to call DC and get Shokin off their backs at Burisma, 100% yes

Your claim of a lie has failed!

 

[essentialsaltes]

You conveniently forgot Bidens son Hunter was criminally being investigated by Shokin "Why"?

Since it is so basic, no doubt you will be able to provide evidence for your statements that Shokin:
*was honest
*was effective
*was investigating Hunter Biden

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[56] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[57]

You have provided no evidence Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. We have provided evidence that he wasn't. We're not forgetting anything. You're promoting false claims.

Unless, perhaps, you have evidence you would care to share?

 

[Truth7t7]

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[56] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[57]

You have provided no evidence Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. We have provided evidence that he wasn't. We're not forgetting anything. You're promoting false claims.

Unless, perhaps, you have evidence you would care to share?

Oversight.house.gov

Comer Statement on Devon Archer’s Testimony​

July 31, 2023

WASHINGTON—House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) issued the following statement following Devon Archer’s four-hour transcribed interview with the committee:

“Devon Archer’s testimony today confirms Joe Biden lied to the American people when he said he had no knowledge about his son’s business dealings and was not involved. Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ that his son sold around the world to enrich the Biden family. When Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, he joined Hunter Biden’s dinners with his foreign business associates in person or by speakerphone over 20 times. When Burisma’s owner was facing pressure from the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company for corruption, Archer testified that Burisma executives asked Hunter to ‘call D.C.’ after a Burisma board meeting in Dubai.

“Why did Joe Biden lie to the American people about his family’s business dealings and his involvement? It begs the question what else he is hiding from the American people. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability will continue to follow the Bidens’ money trail and interview witnesses to determine whether foreign actors targeted the Bidens, President Biden is compromised and corrupt, and our national security is threatened.”

Below are key takeaways from Devon Archer’s transcribed interview:

• Devon Archer testified that the value of adding Hunter Biden to Burisma’s board was “the brand” and confirmed that then-Vice President Joe Biden was “the brand.”
• Archer admitted that “Burisma would have gone out of business if ‘the brand’ had not been attached to it.” He believed that Hunter Biden being on the board and the Biden brand contributed to Burisma’s longevity. People would have been intimidated to mess with Burisma legally because of the Biden brand.
• In December 2015, Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, and Vadym Pozharski, an executive of Burisma, placed constant pressure on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C. regarding the Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption. Hunter Biden, along with Zlochevsky and Pozharski, “called D.C.” to discuss the matter. Biden, Zlochevsky, and Pozharski stepped away to make the call. This raises concerns that Hunter Biden was in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
• Devon Archer testified that Hunter Biden put then-Vice President Joe Biden on the speakerphone during business meetings over 20 times. Archer testified that Joe Biden was put on the phone to sell “the brand.” These phone calls include a dinner in Paris with a French energy company and in China with Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR.
• Archer acknowledged that then-Vice President Biden had coffee with Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR, in Beijing. Then-Vice President Biden even wrote a letter of recommendation for college for Li’s daughter.
• Archer confirmed Joe Biden was referred to as “my guy” by Hunter Biden.
• In spring of 2014, then-Vice President Biden attended a business dinner with his son, Hunter, and his associates at Café Milano in Washington, D.C. Elena Baturina, a Russian oligarch who is the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, attended the dinner. Notably, the Biden Administration’s public sanctions list for Russian oligarchs does not contain Baturina.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oversight.house.gov

Comer Statement on Devon Archer’s Testimony​

Well, I'm glad we've settled that Shokin was not investigating Hunter Biden.

 

[USincognito]

Define Quid Pro Quo

As others pointed out, basically it means something for something.

Now, all you need to do is tell us exactly what then Vice President Biden recieved personally from the transaction.

It is all based around a quid pro quo

Sort of, but the problem is the dishonest narrative on the part of conservatives and the fact that y'all are ignoring numerous facts to myopically focus in a three sentence soundbite.

And I have never assumed ignorance on your part I would ask that you would not do the same with me. It’s not a good debate, tactic it makes you look weak.

I don't think you're ignorant. I think you're being disingenuous. You could prove me wrong by actually addressing the points I keep raising.

How about addressing why the Ukrainians wanted Shokin gone? Do you think it was because of Hunter?
How about addressing why the EU wanted him gone (see OP)?
How about addressing why the IMF wanted him gone (see OP)?
How about addressing why 3 Republican Senators signed a letter calling for Shokin to be removed?

 

[Truth7t7]

Well, I'm glad we've settled that Shokin was not investigating Hunter Biden.

Fact is, Shokin was investigating "Burisma", and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors for "Burisma"

You can't separate Hunter Biden from "Burisma" and Shokins investigation

 

[USincognito]

Shokin was fired directly related to Joe Biden using extortion upon the country of Ukraine, if they didn't fire Shokin who was investigating his son Hunter, Ukraine wouldn't get the $Billion$ its that simple as seen in the attached clip below

The part in bold is a falsehood. Shokin wasn't investigating anyone. That was the problem.

In The Clip 1:15, Joe Biden Brags About His Extortion Of Ukraine

As I stated in my reply to HL, a three sentence soundbite is narrative, not fact.

If you call Joe Biden bringing "Extortion" upon a nation Ukraine diplomacy, what's next?

Calling the use of soft diplomatic power per U.S. policy as set by the President of the United States "extortion" is histrionic nonsense.

Joe Biden: You don't get the $Billion$ until Shokin is fired?

Vice President Biden was doing his job as tasked by President Obama.

Shokin was fired directly related to Joe Biden using extortion upon the country of Ukraine, if they didn't fire Shokin who was investigating his son Hunter, Ukraine wouldn't get the $Billion$ its that simple as seen in the attached clip below

Again, this is a falsehood.

Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden Scandal in Ukraine Is "Absolute Nonsense"

The rumor that Joe Biden abused his power to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine is “absolute nonsense,” leading anti-corruption activist says.

theintercept.com

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center,​

The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.​

​

The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.​

In The Clip 1:15, Joe Biden Brags About His Extortion Of Ukraine

Spamming the same out of context three sentence soundbite isn't the same as addressing the points in the OP.

It was a clear explanation of extortion upon a foreign nation Ukraine, Joe Biden represented the interest of his son Hunter who was being investigated by Shokin, he used taxpayer dollars as the foundation for his crimes of extortion

That's just a straight up lie at this point.

Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden | Financial Times
European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said.

EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push for Mr Shokin’s removal was part of an international effort to bolster Ukraine’s institutions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country. “

All of us were really pushing [former Ukrainian president Petro] Poroshenko that he needs to do something, because the prosecutor was not following any of the corruption issues. He was really bad news,” said an EU diplomat involved in the discussions. “It was Biden who finally came in [and triggered it]. Biden was the most vocal, as the US usually is. But we were all literally complaining about the prosecutor.”

 

[Ana the Ist]

Since this falsehood/historical revisionism has been cropping up numerous times and Rep. Taylor Greene repeated it in the House chambers last week, let's try putting this baby to bed at least in this section of CF. It's been almost 3 years. It's time to stop with the nonsense.

Agreed.

1. The most important point is that Vice Presidents have very little control over money outside of their own office. Spending is authorized by congress and controlled (mostly) by the President. Even if VP Biden wanted to shake down the Ukrainians for personal gain, he didn't have he power to do so

You really should have included a "no" option in the survey because apparently "we" aren't clear on what the accusation is or perhaps more specifically...you don't know what the accusation is, possibly you don't even know the difference between a shakedown and bribe.

.
2. The United States had an ongoing policy that Ukraine (which like many post-Soviet, former SSRs was suffering from severe corruption issues) needed to clean up it's act before the U.S. would invest in closer ties, especially military ties.

Evidence?

President Obama put that policy into action by demanding that Shokin be removed and replaced with a prosecutor who actually would investigate and go after corruption. He dispatched then VP Biden on a diplomatic mission to deliver the message.

Well we know Biden demanded Shokin be fired. I don't recall him saying anything about having Shokin replaced or the investigation continuing. What we do know is that they appear to have hired Hunter for his ties to Biden (a move completely unnecessary if this was official US policy unrelated to Hunter's employment) and Hunter's associate, Devon Archer, appears to have done work to facilitate holdings for the gas company in the US.

If Obama was pursuing this official policy as you claim, then not only did he not need to send Biden....but doing so was a bad mistake, as it was noted at the time by one of the several toothless anti-corruption agencies at the time that the whole thing looked corrupt (OIG perhaps? I'd have to look it up).

2. a. There were eight U.S. Senators who actively were calling for Shokin's removal in 2016 - three of them, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman and Mark Kirk are Republicans. If Biden only wanted Shokin gone to protect Hunter, why did 3 Republican Senators sign a letter stating he needed to go?

Perhaps they're also corrupt and belonged on committee chairs that gave them inside information regarding energy policy and had bought stock in Burisma. Perhaps after being warned of the appearance of corruption, Biden called in a few favors. Were these Senators sitting on any committees or close to Senators who were?

3. The desire to see Shokin removed was internal (Ukrainians had been protesting outside his house),

The president of the Ukraine didn't want to fire Shokin. Words out of Biden's own mouth.

European the EU wanted him gone, individual countries like the British wanted him gone, international (both DoD and State said he need to go), and multi-national (NATO and IMF wanted him removed.

We are Nato and the IMF. Since Burisma would be supplying natural gas to European nations in NATO, this is hardly a surprise.

The suggestion that the decision was solely Joe Biden and solely for the purpose of protecting Hunter simply cannot withstand scrutiny.

I don't think that's the accusation. The accusation is that Joe was bribed using Hunter as a proxy.

4. The reason the infamous Council on Foreign Relations video is usually shown in a truncated version is to remove context and to count on the ignorance and/or trust of the intended audience.

I've watched the full video. It wasn't that long. There's no missing context. Joe threatened to withhold aid to the Ukraine if they didn't remove the investigator.

If you think the added context of the entire video adds anything that changes what Joe said feel free to explain what that is.

As it stands, Joe brags rather stupidly about threatening to withhold aid if the Ukraine didn't remove Shokin. He makes it clear that not only did the Ukraine not want to remove Shokin, but he claimed Obama had his back.

Here are some fact checks. Please address the content rathe than talk about the sources.

Trump Revives False Narrative on Biden and Ukraine - FactCheck.org

At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden's work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.

www.factcheck.org

Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son

Despite a Senate GOP investigation that found no wrongdoing by Joe Biden on foreign policy in Ukraine, claims to the contrary continue to circulate.

www.usatoday.com

Most of what you've claimed here is entirely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if the entire world wanted Shokin removed....it's irrelevant to whether or not Biden is guilty of abuse of power (especially for personal gain), corruption, bribery, and the host of other crimes related to this incident.

Now...there's really only 2 things to establish regarding the case.

1. Was Biden responsible for ending a corruption investigation into Burisma (which would allow Burisma to establish holdings in the US and other nations, greatly increasing their profits) and we know from Biden's own words the answer is yes....that's exactly what he did.

2. Did Biden receive a bribe, either directly or by proxy from his son? There's a bevy of evidence suggesting he did, and this isn't the only time in the form of emails, shady banking practices, secret paid informants, possible recordings of phone conversations with Biden himself, sworn depositions and interviews, whistleblowers, etc.

You'd think the FBI, who investigated every time Trump sneezed for 4 years based on nothing more than second hand unverified information from some Australian diplomat blatant lies and misinformation paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign....you'd think they would have more than enough to investigate, convict, and execute this corrupt president for high treason and abuse of power/threats to national security, and who knows what else....

But since we already know that the FBI participated in the coverup of the laptop on social media and destroys the lives of any FBI whistleblowers willing to speak up....it seems like a real investigation won't occur until this corrupt DOJ is removed by a new president.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is an article from 2016 from the NYTimes.

​

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance​

​

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.​

​

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”​

For anyone unaware if what the IMF and World Bank do....these are international "banks" that are essentially corrupt institutions that take advantage of less economically savvy 3rd and 2nd world nations for the benefit of 1st world nations and their corporations.

Great book called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" explains the process in really great detail and the various scams aren't even as complex as you might imagine. For example, if you want a advanced hydroelectric dam to provide energy to a city but don't know how to build it or don't have the funds to really afford paying someone else to build it....the IMF or World Bank will essentially give your lovely nation a loan that they will likely never be able to pay off because the interest rates are so high that they far exceed any monetary benefits the dam provides for the next 60 years. If that sounds like a ridiculous deal that no one would take....then you aren't considering just how poor and uneducated some nations are.

Anyway, the point being that the IMF telling anyone they're too corrupt to deal with is either a laughable joke...or a sign that they aren't dumb enough to buy what the IMF is selling. It's been a couple of decades since I read the book so perhaps they've cleaned up their act....but I find it doubtful.

Regardless, the whole thing about Shokin being corrupt is irrelevant. I've never seen any evidence produced showing he is corrupt....nor would the Ukraine be unable to remove him if he were. The fact is, the Ukraine thought Burisma was corrupt....and had someone investigating. The fact is....the Ukraine didn't want him removed from the investigation and Biden got him removed by threatening to withhold aid (which as I'm sure everyone recalls is what Trump was threatened with impeachment for...threatening to withhold aid to the Ukraine....with the only difference being he wanted them to investigate Burisma).

Whether or not Shokin was actually corrupt is entirely irrelevant to whether or not Biden was paid by Burisma for this or rewarded by Burisma after this.

All that matters is whether or not Joe got money from Burisma, directly or indirectly, for using his position as VP to remove Shokin.

 

[Truth7t7]

Vice President Biden was doing his job as tasked by President Obama.

Blame it on Obama, Sure!

Real Big Smiles!

 

[Ana the Ist]

There we go...back when Hunter was hired by Burisma after the regime change in the Ukraine, Biden was suddenly deeply involved in Ukrainian foreign policy....

Mr Kent there appears to have lodged a complaint against this assignment from some office of the State Department pointing out the obvious "conflict of interest" of the VP pressuring the end of an investigation into Burisma.

So even when this was happening people within the administration pointed out how obviously corrupt it appeared. Thankfully, nothing was done to investigate....


Since Burisma was obviously not corrupt and had nothing to hide (and the people investigating this uncorrupted company for corruption were allegedly corrupt) we got that pointless corruption investigation ended....you know, because US foreign policy was to end corruption in the Ukraine.

What happened to the Democratic Party voters? I don't understand how anyone could believe this story if they think about it for 5 seconds lol.

Democratic Party- "Our foreign policy in the Ukraine was to end corruption so we could do more business with them and supply them with aid."

People with functioning brains - "Great idea! How did you accomplish that??"

Democratic Party- "We sent Joe Biden over there to threaten to withhold aid if they don't fire these investigators trying to expose and prosecute corruption in Ukrainian companies."

People with functioning brains- "Wait....what? I thought you wanted to end corruption in the Ukraine?? Why would you demand they fire investigators trying to end corruption in the Ukraine?!? Wouldn't that just allow more corruption in the Ukraine?"

Democratic Party- "Exactly. Once there's no more investigators trying to find corruption in the Ukraine, we can pretend the companies we're doing business with aren't corrupt....because nobody will be investigating them for corruption."


People with functioning brains- "That just sounds like you're covering up corruption!"


Democratic Party- "Look, don't worry about it. We've got the VP threatening them with the potential withholding of billions of dollars of aid and his crackhead son who writes off his prostitutes as work expenses on the job. It's all very complicated. It's also possibly Russian disinformation....and you don't want to get fooled by those Russians."

 

[Ana the Ist]

I mean seriously, who actually believes this story the Democratic Party is spinning. If you genuinely believe it, explain this 1 detail....

If the Democratic Party had a position of ending or reducing corruption in the Ukraine, should they....

1. Demand more investigations and more investigators...perhaps a multinational coalition of expert investigators all ramp up investigations into corruption in the Ukraine.

Or....

2. Send old Joe and his drug addicted, tax dodging, son to the Ukraine to demand they end investigations into corruption in the Ukraine?

The wild thing is they're saying that #2 is how you prevent corruption in the Ukraine and apparently....there's a considerable number of Democratic supporters that makes sense to. It's as if they know those supporters will buy whatever they are told and it doesn't matter if it doesn't make an ounce of sense. They don't respect the intelligence of their voters and its pretty clear why. Then again, this isn't all that different from their strategies for combating racism (blame white people for everything and teach it to little kids in public school) or their strategy for fighting crime (blame police and call criminals the real victims) or their strategy to improve student educational outcomes (end standardized testing so no one knows how dumb these students really are). When you consider that so many of their policies involve hiding problems and pretending they don't exist....yeah...firing Ukrainian corruption investigators to end (hide) corruption in the Ukraine makes perfect sense.

To those of us who thought about it for 5 seconds though....it's clearly just a really bad lie.

 

[USincognito]

Blame it on Obama, Sure!

What am a "blaming" on President Obama?

 

[KCfromNC]

Good, normal functioning Governmental action is sought to be turned into corruption in daylight!

I mean, it was * gasp * done by a Democrat. What else could it possibly be?

 

[KCfromNC]

I mean seriously, who actually believes this story the Democratic Party is spinning.

Based on the thread, it is people who base their posts on actual facts rather than ones which start out with veiled attempts to imply others are gullible for believing in reality.

If you genuinely believe it, explain this 1 detail....

If the Democratic Party had a position of ending or reducing corruption in the Ukraine, should they....

1. Demand more investigations and more investigators...perhaps a multinational coalition of expert investigators all ramp up investigations into corruption in the Ukraine.

Or....

2. Send old Joe and his drug addicted, tax dodging, son to the Ukraine to demand they end investigations into corruption in the Ukraine?

Or 3. not fall for a false dilemma based on an inaccurate framing of the facts of what happened.

 

[NxNW]

If the Democratic Party had a position of ending or reducing corruption in the Ukraine, should they....

1. Demand more investigations and more investigators...perhaps a multinational coalition of expert investigators all ramp up investigations into corruption in the Ukraine.

Or....

2. Send old Joe and his drug addicted, tax dodging, son to the Ukraine to demand they end investigations into corruption in the Ukraine?

As pointed out earlier, The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

The wild thing is they're saying that #2 is how you prevent corruption in the Ukraine and apparently....there's a considerable number of Democratic supporters that makes sense to. It's as if they know those supporters will buy whatever they are told and it doesn't matter if it doesn't make an ounce of sense. They don't respect the intelligence of their voters and its pretty clear why. Then again, this isn't all that different from their strategies for combating racism (blame white people for everything and teach it to little kids in public school) or their strategy for fighting crime (blame police and call criminals the real victims) or their strategy to improve student educational outcomes (end standardized testing so no one knows how dumb these students really are). When you consider that so many of their policies involve hiding problems and pretending they don't exist....yeah...

That's an awful lot of lies in one paragraph.

firing Ukrainian corruption investigators to end (hide) corruption in the Ukraine makes perfect sense.

As pointed out earlier, The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

To those of us who thought about it for 5 seconds though....it's clearly just a really bad lie.

You might try thinking about it for ten seconds next time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As pointed out earlier, The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

Makes perfect sense. I mean, after all, he was prosecutor for 1 whole year. Our government has had every Trump classified doc since 2021 and they're still struggling to get that case together. We spent 4 years trying to find any connection between Trump and Russia. We had Hunter's laptop since 2019 and that's still under investigation. Surely 1 whole year is enough to secure corruption convictions against deep pocketed multinational energy corporations.

Shokin was prosecutor for....let's see....1 year lol so I can see why he was so disappointing everyone who expected him to find all the corruption in Ukraine. I mean what sort of awful prosecutor can't get some convictions on corruption in 1 year?

How did his successor do? Did he lock up half the country? Shokin was prosecutor for all of a few months before Burisma decided to hire Hunter and sic old Joe on him....so his successor must have been a human dynamo lol.

That's an awful lot of lies in one paragraph.

It's just one lie. It goes like this...

"We wanted to end corruption in the Ukraine so we made sure that the guy investigating corruption in the Ukraine was fired."

I mean...if I had a full frontal lobotomy that would make total sense to me.

As pointed out earlier, The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

Sure sure...I bet there's plenty of evidence of it to. After all, he had 1 whole year to conduct these thorough investigations lol. Perhaps he could have sped up those investigations by calling up Joe Biden and asking him which Ukrainian companies his son worked for.

You might try thinking about it for ten seconds next time.

Bravo sir, if there was a slow clap option here...I'd definitely be giving you a round of applause.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Based on the thread, it is people who base their posts on actual facts rather than ones which start out with veiled attempts to imply others are gullible for believing in reality.

You presented facts....I'll give you that.

I don't see what they have to do with whether or not Joe Biden took a bribe.

Maybe you can just point it out though...what do officials in the UK wanting Shokin gone have to do with Biden taking a bribe? What does the IMF wanting Shokin gone have to do Biden taking a bribe?

The only connection I see is perhaps all these powerful nations and international interests wanting Shokin gone is exactly why the FBI and former CIA officials have helped Biden get elected by squashing the laptop story and they're also the reason why the FBI and DOJ in general is protecting him from investigation.

Or 3. not fall for a false dilemma based on an inaccurate framing of the facts of what happened.

Inaccurate?

What's inaccurate? You're claiming the Democratic Party policy in the Ukraine was to put an end to corruption...yet the only thing that they've done to "end corruption" was pressure Ukrainian officials to fire the guy investigating corruption by threatening to withhold billions in aid.

How does that end corruption in the Ukraine?

 

[NxNW]

What's inaccurate? You're claiming the Democratic Party policy in the Ukraine was to put an end to corruption...yet the only thing that they've done to "end corruption" was pressure Ukrainian officials to fire the guy investigating corruption by threatening to withhold billions in aid.

How does that end corruption in the Ukraine?

Because the fired guy was not investigating corruption.