Politicspolitics

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:23 PM

Schiff: Biden Ukraine Scandal Should Be Off Limits

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Sunday that Joe Biden's Ukraine corruption scandal should be off limits as the 2020 US election approaches, and that President Trump shouldn't be allowed to investigate - or encourage Ukraine to investigate.



Biden has come under fire for a March, 2016 incident in Kiev in which he threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. As it so happens, Joe's son Hunter Biden sat on Burisma's board, and waas indirectly paid as much as $50,000 per month.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-12/schiff-says-biden-ukraine-scandal-should-be-limits

Shouldn’t we put one of Comeys “normal” informants into the Campaign?

This has legs people

90 replies, 799 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply Schiff: Biden Ukraine Scandal Should Be Off Limits (Original post)
Gunslinger201 May 13 OP
Horsefeathers May 13 #1
Gunslinger201 May 13 #2
Horsefeathers May 13 #4
foia May 13 #6
batcat May 13 #24
MeatSandwich May 13 #3
DP46 May 13 #5
Grumpy Pickle May 14 #28
KittyCatIdiots Yesterday #77
Trevor May 13 #7
Carl May 13 #8
Muddling Through May 13 #9
Trevor May 13 #14
Muddling Through May 13 #15
Trevor May 13 #17
Muddling Through May 13 #18
Trevor May 13 #19
Muddling Through May 13 #20
Trevor May 13 #21
Muddling Through May 13 #22
Trevor May 13 #23
Muddling Through May 14 #33
Trevor May 14 #39
Muddling Through May 14 #40
Trevor May 14 #41
Muddling Through May 14 #42
Trevor May 14 #45
Muddling Through May 14 #46
Trevor May 14 #47
Muddling Through May 14 #48
Trevor Wednesday #51
Muddling Through Wednesday #53
Trevor Thursday #60
Muddling Through Thursday #64
Trevor Thursday #66
Nostrings Yesterday #75
Trevor 20 hrs ago #78
Nostrings 20 hrs ago #80
Trevor 18 hrs ago #83
Nostrings 17 hrs ago #85
Trevor 17 hrs ago #87
Nostrings 17 hrs ago #90
kevlar Yesterday #72
Nostrings Yesterday #74
Grumpy Pickle May 14 #29
Trevor May 14 #34
Nostrings Yesterday #73
Trevor 20 hrs ago #79
Nostrings 20 hrs ago #81
Trevor 18 hrs ago #82
Nostrings 17 hrs ago #84
Trevor 17 hrs ago #88
Nostrings 17 hrs ago #89
kevlar Wednesday #54
Trevor May 13 #10
Carl May 13 #11
Trevor May 13 #12
Carl May 14 #32
Trevor May 14 #35
Carl May 14 #36
Trevor May 14 #38
Carl May 14 #43
Trevor May 14 #44
Carl Wednesday #56
Trevor Thursday #58
Carl Thursday #61
Trevor Thursday #62
Carl Thursday #67
Trevor Thursday #69
Carl Friday #70
Trevor Friday #71
Carl Wednesday #57
Trevor Thursday #59
Carl Thursday #63
Trevor Thursday #65
Carl Thursday #68
kevlar Wednesday #55
Grumpy Pickle May 14 #31
KittyCatIdiots Yesterday #76
DavesNotHere May 13 #13
Trevor May 13 #16
DavesNotHere May 13 #25
Trevor May 13 #26
DavesNotHere May 14 #30
Trevor May 14 #37
DavesNotHere May 14 #49
Trevor Wednesday #50
DavesNotHere Wednesday #52
AmandaCMatthews 17 hrs ago #86
Valishin May 14 #27

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:25 PM

1. That little schitt

hates the new rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horsefeathers (Reply #1)

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:37 PM

2. Crazy Uncle Joe might be as dirty as the rest of Obamas cabal

Pity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #2)

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:50 PM

4. Lefty effed up last week when

they personally attacked Bill Barr in that circus hearing. He is going to pay them back in spades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horsefeathers (Reply #4)

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:54 PM

6. Barr doesn't need to "pay them back"

He just needs to do his job in exposing what went on in Justice during the O administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #2)

Mon May 13, 2019, 11:24 PM

24. If you hang around with dogs you can get fleas.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:49 PM

3. Why not investigate a legitimate scandel?

What's good for the goose and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2019, 03:51 PM

5. Just like the pedophilia charges against Shiff are off limits?

After I all ... "I have conclusive proof" that's every bit as valid and real as his is about Trump's Collusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #5)

Tue May 14, 2019, 01:16 AM

28. Shiff is a liar.

He had over 2 years to present his " conclusive proof " that Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

He never did.....proves he's been lying for 2 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #28)


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2019, 07:45 PM

7. Your Biden / Ukraine scandal has been debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:32 PM

8. By Bloomberg?

Get back to me after a 2.5 year special consul investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #8)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:46 PM

9. By the same people

who "Totally accepted the results of the 2016 election"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #9)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:22 PM

14. Do you mean me?

Because it wasn't without reservations or some fringe people trying to fight it, but then it was totally accepted as done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #14)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:27 PM

15. "Totally Accepted"

by people who have insisted for two years that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. When that didn't bear fruit by "St. Bobby 3 Sticks Mueller" the focus shifted to some "Obstruction" bullshit. Democrats are still bitching and moaning about impeachment. The same people who won't accept the results of the 2000 election.

Totally accepted by ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #15)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:31 PM

17. If we didn't think he was elected we wouldn't bother with all the other stuff.

We accepted the results of the 2000 election too. You can't tell complaints from not accepting. Birthers didn't accept Obama. That's not accepting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #17)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:37 PM

18. Horseshit.

You've never accepted 2000 or 2016. You've been screaming "Collusion" for 2 years non-stop. The fact that you're pursuing "Muh Obstruction" and talking Impeachment doesn't take away from the fact that you've never accepted your losses. Even Stacey Abrams won't accept the results of her 2018 loss in GA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #18)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:42 PM

19. Are you angry?

Collusion doesn't mean not accepting election results. Impeachment isn't being seriously discussed for now. The fact that Trump was elected doesn't make it OK for him to obstruct justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #19)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:45 PM

20. Angry? No, amused by the constant denial and goal-post moving.

Collusion allegations absolutely means not accepting the election results. "Seriously discussed"? It's been a hot topic for 2 years, unless you've got your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala". There's no Obstruction case to make; that's a wet dream from the Democrat Party after "St. Robert" let them down with his Collusion investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #20)

Mon May 13, 2019, 10:34 PM

21. Hundreds of well qualified individuals signed a letter saying there WAS obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Mon May 13, 2019, 10:36 PM

22. Thousands of well qualified individuals didn't sign the same letter.

I win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #22)

Mon May 13, 2019, 10:46 PM

23. You might win if thousands signed a letter saying there wasn't obstruction.

But for now I'm well ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #23)

Tue May 14, 2019, 05:24 AM

33. Nope.

You have hundreds who signed a letter; I have thousands who didn't. I win by preponderence of the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #33)

Tue May 14, 2019, 08:50 PM

39. You lose by making silly arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #39)

Tue May 14, 2019, 08:59 PM

40. Silly arguments like

"Democrats have always accepted the results of the 2016 election"?

Because that's a ridiculous statement for anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last 2
and a half years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #40)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:01 PM

41. It runs counter to your RW narrative

To you, its unthinkable to do that but I have no problem doing it because I'm not a zombie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #41)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:03 PM

42. You've just made less sense than normal.

I didn't think that was possible, but you did.

No one who's been screaming "Muh Collusion!" for the last
2 and half years can claim to have accepted the results of the
2016 election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #42)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:25 PM

45. You have a fascist way of defining accept.

Accept to you means taking it without questions or objections. Despite that we know Trump won. That's accept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #45)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:38 PM

46. You like to make up your own definitions of words. Like "Fascist".

Which is rapidly becoming as meaningless as "Racist".

Accept means to regard as legitimate.

Screamng "Muh Collusion!!!" for 2 and a half years is not regarding as legitimate. Insisting that the election was "stolen" with the help of the Russians is not accepting the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #46)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:49 PM

47. That's your definition

I define it differently. Every time you guys blamed the "liberal media" for losing an election that means you didn't accept the results? Every time you claimed dead people voted or non-citizens voted you weren't' accepting the results of elections? Under your definition election results usually aren't accepted.

You act like my opinion is incredible but its just a rational opinion that doesn't match yours.

And not that many people flat out accused Trump of colluding or said we would have won if it wasn't for Russian interference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #47)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:59 PM

48. "And not that many people flat out accused Trump of colluding"

Just Hillary and every major talking head of the DNC and the mainstream media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #48)

Wed May 15, 2019, 07:51 PM

51. No. It was posed as a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #51)

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:28 PM

53. No. It was repeatedly stated as a fact.

Stop lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #53)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:46 PM

60. Link it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #60)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:09 PM

64. You first, liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #64)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:19 PM

66. You made the claim so you should be expected to back it up.

But still, I'll give you this:

"But, you know, I happen to believe in the rule of law and believe in evidence, so I'm not going to go off and make all kinds of outrageous claims." Hillary Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/12/clinton-just-accused-trump-associates-of-collusion-with-russia/?utm_term=.ae1f0f2fb243

Look at all the other Democrats there who didn't go the whole way with it. I know of one who did but just one, and others said there was collusion but defined it differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #47)

Tue May 21, 2019, 11:14 AM

75. His and just about everyone elses.

HIS is the commonly held definition of the term.

Yours is contrived and concocted for argument, and is defined as 'accepting the results of the election' yet holding those results as illegitimate (if anyone needs an example of those moving leftist goalposts, there is is).

You just said so whether you realize it or not, dumbass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #75)

Tue May 21, 2019, 06:06 PM

78. Not illegitimate enough to void the election.

Trump said he was the victim of 3 million illegal votes. By your calculations then Trump refused to accept the results of the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #78)

Tue May 21, 2019, 06:37 PM

80. More than illegitimate enough to be a lie if you use the word "accept".

"Trump said..."


TRUMPPPPP!!!!


Bwahahahahahaa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #80)

Tue May 21, 2019, 08:44 PM

83. Accept:

"The definition of accept means to willingly take, receive or agree to an object or idea."

Nothing there says it has to be with no complaints. BWAHAHAHHAHHHAAHHA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #83)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:17 PM

85. "Not my president" isn't a complaint, dumbass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #85)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:44 PM

87. Its nothing at all.

If the outcome of the election was not accepted the sign would say "not president at all." As it was the sign bearer made clear he was only speaking for himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #87)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:58 PM

90. Only in your feeble mind trevor.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #41)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:35 AM

72. Narrative?

Finally something you know something about.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #39)

Tue May 21, 2019, 10:56 AM

74. Oh look, now trevor, bane of cherry-picking everywhere is...cherry-picking.

Bwahahahahahahah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Tue May 14, 2019, 01:19 AM

29. Obstruction of a non-existent crime ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #29)

Tue May 14, 2019, 06:43 PM

34. There doesn't have to be an underlying crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #34)

Tue May 21, 2019, 10:48 AM

73. There DOES have to be corrupt intent and it has to be proven.

Good luck proving that WITHOUT an underlying crime, given that everyone knows the Mueller witch hunt was a fishing trip/cover op posing as a legit investigation, and that the President stated publicly numerous times that THAT was his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #73)

Tue May 21, 2019, 06:09 PM

79. It could be a corrupt intent to cover up something that was just embarrassing.

You suck at law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #79)

Tue May 21, 2019, 06:40 PM

81. It could be blue cheese from the moon.

"It could be a corrupt intent to cover up something that was just embarrassing."

Given President Trumps bulletproof stature as demonstrated over the last 3 years or so, not very likely.


"You suck at law."

YOU suck at reality, living in a bubble will do that to you.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #81)

Tue May 21, 2019, 08:35 PM

82. Then you should admit you were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #82)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:16 PM

84. Wrong about what?

Heres what I said:

There DOES have to be corrupt intent and it has to be proven. (factually correct)

Good luck proving that WITHOUT an underlying crime, given that everyone knows the Mueller witch hunt was a fishing trip/cover op posing as a legit investigation, and that the President stated publicly numerous times that THAT was his position. (also factually correct)



Which part of what I said here was wrong, dumbass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #84)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:49 PM

88. Nose Rings said, " Good luck proving that WITHOUT an underlying crime,"

It can be proven without an underlying crime. Good luck trying is the same as saying it can't be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #88)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:55 PM

89. Yes, he did.

"Good luck trying is the same as saying it can't be done."

That isn't up to you to decide. Thats up to ME to decide, I authored it, you didn't.


In this case, dumbass, it means "It *wont* be done, because if it could be it already would have been".


Oh look, trevor has been proven wrong yet again.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #17)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:37 PM

54. Nonsensical lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #8)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:48 PM

10. By Bloomberg for one.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

A special counsel would be preferable to having Rudy Giuliani go over to Ukraine to try to get a case trumped up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Mon May 13, 2019, 08:59 PM

11. How many so called "truths" have been false about Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #11)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:10 PM

12. How many have been true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #12)

Tue May 14, 2019, 05:18 AM

32. So far none,no collusion,no obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #32)

Tue May 14, 2019, 06:44 PM

35. There has been obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Tue May 14, 2019, 07:56 PM

36. No there has not.

You saying it does not make it true.

There was more obstruction with Obama declaring that there was not a smidgen of corruption during the Clinton email whitewash and then Lynch meeting with Bill on the tarmac.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #36)

Tue May 14, 2019, 08:37 PM

38. Those things you are bringing up were investigated and no wrongdoing was found.

With Trump however, the facts lead to something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #38)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:07 PM

43. They were not investigated.

No one knows what happened on the tarmac yet after 2.5 years we have found out there was no collusion and no obstruction.

Those are the facts despite you refusing to accept them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #43)

Tue May 14, 2019, 09:20 PM

44. I think the IG looked into the tarmac meeting.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/ig-report-release-fbi-clinton-investigation-analysis/

Barr doesn't give no obstruction as a fact. Why should I accept as fact that which is not described as fact by your own people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #44)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:12 PM

56. Mueller did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #56)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:28 PM

58. Mueller did what?

Mueller didn't say no obstruction. He described 10 events or more and put the arguments for and against prosecution after each one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #58)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:02 PM

61. Mueller can have any opinion he wants but one he did not say was there flat out obstruction.

He could have done that if he wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #61)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:04 PM

62. He left it open.

Now I can say there was and not be contradicting Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #62)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:19 PM

67. He could have said flat out there was,he did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #67)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:26 PM

69. I'm not sure he felt free to say which he thought it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #69)

Fri May 17, 2019, 04:56 AM

70. He was free to say anything he wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #70)

Fri May 17, 2019, 10:33 PM

71. If he testifies we'll find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #44)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:14 PM

57. A clintons word is worth zilch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #57)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:30 PM

59. If you had someone more credible who contradicted them you would

have more of a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #59)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:05 PM

63. Wanna go back to her cattle futures lies and move on from there?

Or Bills perjury?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #63)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:09 PM

65. No. I don't want to go back over all that history.

Weren't we talking about the tarmac meeting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #65)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:20 PM

68. I said a Clintons word was worth zilch.

That has been proven over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:42 PM

55. Like your previous borrowed opinions and narratives

this one is just as flawed.

Lefty lies all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Tue May 14, 2019, 01:21 AM

31. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #31)


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Mon May 13, 2019, 09:16 PM

13. So Hunter Biden was NOT making $50k a month

On the board of a company that being investigated in Ukraine for corruption?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Trevor (Reply #16)

Mon May 13, 2019, 11:46 PM

25. Okay, I'm not as well versed on this as some, but let me say what I see in the links

and perhaps you could be kind enough to tell me where I went wrong...

"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.

Properly debunking this particular conspiracy theory is easier said than done, though, since it is set in Ukraine, a country with byzantine political intrigue at the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The rivalries between political factions in Kiev are so intense that even the country’s new anti-corruption agencies are at each other’s throats." (from the Intercept article)

So there's no dispute that the country's chief prosecutor lost their job at Biden's urging, the question is just about Biden's motivation for doing so.

We also know that the Anti-Corruption agencies in Ukraine, one of which Kaleniuk founded, disagree with each other.

We know that Mykola Zlochevsky was in charge of overseeing all Ukrainian energy firms including Ukraine's largest independent energy firm, Burisma, which he controlled through shell companies.

We know that Hunter Biden went to work for this firm, run by this official that Kaleniuk says was corrupt. I don't doubt that he was corrupt, and it would seem like this was known to many people at the time Biden was appointed. "just weeks before Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in May 2014, ostensibly “to strengthen corporate governance,” Britain’s Serious Fraud Office had frozen $23 million of Zlochevsky’s assets in a money laundering investigation. "

We also know that there was actually a case against Zlochevsky, the guy running Burisma, but according to the reports, the case wasn't "being pursued". So when you say the company wasn't being investigated, that wasn't really completely accurate, as there WAS a case against it's owner specifically related to the company.

New reporting from Bloomberg News this week revealed that the 2014 case against Zlochevsky “was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.”

"Kasko, the former deputy prosecutor, told Bloomberg News that there was no truth to the accusation that Biden or anyone in the Obama administration had tried to block the investigation of Zlochevsky. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

So to sum up, Hunter Biden was making $600K a year on the board of Burisma, for a position in which he had no particular experience or qualifications for. He took the job AFTER the guy running it had more than $20 million dollars frozen by British investigators. The lead prosecutor in Ukraine did actually have an investigation open against the owner of that company, though how much effort he was putting in may have been an issue. Biden did use his influence to get the prosecutor fired in 2016, but the investigation ended quietly in 2017 with no charges being filed at all. Biden's son fell into a job where he made $600k a year for an energy company in the Ukraine, but never though to mention that to his father, even though it could potentially provide a conflict of interests, and even though his father was an "expert" in international affairs. I guess they just talked about the grandkids when they got together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #25)

Mon May 13, 2019, 11:53 PM

26. You read it pretty well.

But having an investigation that isn't being pursued and not having an investigation is basically the same thing. There was nothing for Biden to halt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #26)

Tue May 14, 2019, 01:20 AM

30. If that was the case, then there really wasn't anything to halt, but given that Hunter didn't have

any particular qualifications for that job, that he got the job on April 18th, 2014, just 4 days before Joe visited Ukraine on April 22nd 2014, and that Joe did, in fact, pressure the government to fire the prosecutor, this isn't exactly the "debunking" some are playing it as.

While the prosecutor may have been dragging their feet, there's no way to tell whether the people at Burisma knew that for sure, or that they knew that the open investigation wouldn't eventually be pursued by the guy that got fired once there was an incentive for him to do so. Given that his successor didn't come up with any charges either, it looks like they replaced one ineffective prosecutor with another... oh and Hunter got paid a lot.

And I don't believe for a second that Hunter's $50k a month position for a Ukrainian energy company 4 days before Joe visited the Ukraine didn't ever come up in casual conversation between them. "Hey dad, I know you were disappointed when I got kicked out of the Navy for doing blow just 2 months ago (It happened in Feb 2014), but I got this great new job making a ton of money for not a lot of work"

Interesting also that people are trying to go after Trump for talking about getting rid of an investigator who eventually found nothing (when he didn't actually get rid of him), but Biden "did the Ukrainians a favor" by getting rid of a prosecutor whose successor also found nothing.

There's a lot of very corrupt countries in the world (ours included), it would be interesting to find out how many other foreign prosecutors Biden attempted to have replaced. I haven't heard any other similar stories about this happening anywhere else, but surely this can't be the one and only time he decided to do this, could it? I'm sure some people would be screaming from the mountaintops if a foreign country tried to pressure the US into firing an AG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #30)

Tue May 14, 2019, 08:33 PM

37. I believe Biden's son was hired in 2014 and Joe made his trip in 2016.

There was widespread support both in the the U.S. and internationally for getting that prosecutor fired.

I also think its suspicious for Biden not to know about his son's job but I think its possible. For Biden's son it would have been very uncomfortable to tell his father and he very well may have put off telling him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #37)

Tue May 14, 2019, 11:12 PM

49. Biden made his LAST trip to the Ukraine in 2016

But here's an NYT article from Biden's April 2014 trip.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/world/europe/biden-ukraine.html?_r=1

And there's "widespread support" for getting lots of people fired, but how often does a Vice president intervene?

If you read the article carefully, anyway, it doesn't actually say that Biden didn't know about the job, just that they didn't discuss Hunter's "business interests" in the Ukraine. It's not a direct quote, though, so I wouldn't read to much into the exact wording.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #49)

Wed May 15, 2019, 07:49 PM

50. 2016 was when he tried to get the prosecutor fired.

I don't know all the times Biden intervened on anything. If he gets the nomination we'll probably be told.

If the meaning was as you suggest in your last paragraph then there should be less suspicion about the two not talking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #50)

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:17 PM

52. Actually, if his son told him about the job, how could Biden NOT

Ask some follow up questions about the business? Saying your making a ton of money without a lot of experience or effort in a Ukrainian energy company is like saying you’re doing the same for a waste management company in New Jersey. Sure, it could be legit but should have set off some alarm bells for a person with Biden’s background.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #52)

Tue May 21, 2019, 09:31 PM

86. This is a guy who betrayed his wife and family

by ‘sleeping’ with (what a quaint phrase) his recently deceased brother’s widow.

Hunter Biden is garbage and his Daddy has been behind everything the entitled fraud ever did.

****


Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn't resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"I said, 'You're not getting the billion.' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money,'" Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

"Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.
*
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.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived%3Famp

****

My Great-Grandmother had a phrase for people like the Biden’s. “More crooked than a dog’s hind leg.” The Bidens have been lifting that leg and pissing all over our legal system and the rules we’re ALL supposed to live by for quite some time. Old Unca Happy Hands made his bones passing legislation to benefit predatory credit card companies to the detriment of the poor, and anyone who has to file bankruptcy. These are the same people he made damn sure did hard prison time for THEIR sins, the dirty old hypocrite.

And I’ll just drop Anita Hills name here. That alone speaks volumes on what kind of man that old asshole is.

Biden shares the proverbial snowballs chances in Hell when it comes to his tired old ass ever sitting in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue May 14, 2019, 12:01 AM

27. Objection!

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics