Please help me understand this. Biden

a reply to: rnaa

The take home quote from that article:

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.

Thanks. It's certain no one would have seen that if you didnt quote it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Are you a perfect typist? Can you type as fast as two people can talk and make zero errors?

There are multiple transcriptionists listening into each call the President makes. They take down a transcript of the conversation. They then compare transcripts in order to find errors. The result is the official transcript of the call, although at times there may be typographical mistakes, errors due to accent, or sections which the transcribers could not transcribe accurately denoted by the notation "inaudible."

That does not mean it is not the official transcript of the call, as verbatim as possible. It is.

I am really getting tired of lazy people who do no research... just so you know. There is no need to type the same post over and over again just because someone doesn't want to read anything not specifically addressed to them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No one is disputing that Biden said he would withhold money.
Its the reason he withheld the money that is in dispute.

Hint... It was NOT to stop any investigation into his son or to stop any investigation into the company his son worked for.
He withheld it because they were not investigating the company.
that's a huge detail to leave out of the story because your version makes it into something entirely different.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Let me start with this...The phone call matches the complaint.

I know that several people are taking notes.
I know that the memo is a compilation of their notes.
I only included that quote because you said it was a transcript of the call and that statement clearly states that it is not a verbatim transcript.

No I am not a perfect typist. The Backspace button is the most used button on my keyboard. ( I used it in this very sentence LOL)

a reply to: Sillyolme

He told us the reason: to get a prosecutor fired. That is called "quid pro quo." We have no treaty with Ukraine that says we must approve their prosecutors. His son sitting on the Board of Directors of the company being investigated is irrelevant to that. It only takes on relevance if you want to go into a money laundering charge.

Trump asked for an investigation into an aspect of the 2016 elections. The US does have a treaty with Ukraine that allows us to do that. He did not state he would withhold money from Ukraine if they did not comply. That is not quid pro quo unless you can prove both that he intended to insinuate financial pressure and that Zelensky understood there was a threat of financial pressure. Hint: "it's so obvious" is not proof. Someone's opinion is not proof. Official documentation is proof.

Trump has denied he intended to convey that the financial aid was dependent on the request, and Zelensky has publicly stated that he felt no such pressure. Unless you can find actual documentation or get one of them to change their story, you have zero proof.

You have no proof of the allegations against Trump; we have a confession of the allegations against Biden.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme

I know that several people are taking notes.
I know that the memo is a compilation of their notes.
I only included that quote because you said it was a transcript of the call and that statement clearly states that it is not a verbatim transcript.

If you knew, then you intentionally attempted to twist the note into saying that the transcript is not the whole truth. Any deviation from verbatim is minor and inconsequential. You just did it again by calling it a "memo." it is a transcript.

You could at least try to be honest here.

TheRedneck

We all value many things of all types..but it is pretty much comment sense here the things of value mentioned are actual things of value for ones personnel gain of wealth. But...here is a definition I got from the internetz.

definitions.uslegal.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Faeded

When it is two countries not Joe Blow and his cousin Vinny a favor can be a very large thing of value.
Where are you getting your definition of "thing of value" because that is really subjective.

originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: Joneselius

Biden then told the Ukraine, after the government was removed, that unless an investigation into his son wasn't dropped that he'd withhold 1b dollars.

Thats a lie, there's your problem.

Where is the video of Biden boasting how he used his power and the power of withholding money to get a prosecutor kicked off the case?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anticorruption efforts in the Obama administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two, and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it does not matter what father and son discussed. Joe Biden has enabled this brand of practice, made it bipartisan orthodoxy. And the ethical standard in these cases—people’s basic understanding of right and wrong—becomes whatever federal law allows. Which is a lot.

Who among us has not admired or supported people who have engaged in or provided cover for this kind of corruption? How did we convince ourselves it was not corruption? Impeachment alone will not end our national calamity. If we want to help our country heal, we must start holding ourselves, our friends, and our allies—and not just our enemies—to its highest standards.
Biden brags at CFR about getting prosecutor investigating son fired.

SOLID

originally posted by: ThatOneRichGuy
a reply to: Sillyolme

Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anticorruption efforts in the Obama administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two, and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it does not matter what father and son discussed. Joe Biden has enabled this brand of practice, made it bipartisan orthodoxy. And the ethical standard in these cases—people’s basic understanding of right and wrong—becomes whatever federal law allows. Which is a lot.

Who among us has not admired or supported people who have engaged in or provided cover for this kind of corruption? How did we convince ourselves it was not corruption? Impeachment alone will not end our national calamity. If we want to help our country heal, we must start holding ourselves, our friends, and our allies—and not just our enemies—to its highest standards.
Biden brags at CFR about getting prosecutor investigating son fired.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Joneselius

A) do you have any proof Biden said that about “dropping the charges on his son?”

Deliberately misquoting the OP I see... typical...

You even put your misquote in full quotes...

Nothing was said about 'dropping charges', the OP said drop the investigation.

But you're right, the OP was wrong, he didn't come out and say that, he merely demanded that the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation be fired. Or he would withhold the Billion Dollars.

Can you say Quid Pro Quo?

Trump gave jarred Kushner the entireME foreign policy stuff.. Kushner has zero government or ambassadorial experience.

Yes... but Jared isn't being paid $50k/month. In fact, I believe he isn't being paid anything - same for all of Trumps family members. They are working purely for the good of our Country, myself, and - yes, even liars like you.

But of course you don't see a difference, because 'Orange Man Bad'.

C) Ukraine says that Hunter Biden and Joe are perfectly clean in Ukraine.. The same people who said investigating Hunter was not conditional, also said Hunter Biden is clean.

That is an outright LIE. Said another way... you are a LIAR.

In fact, there is ample evidence in the form of sworn affidavits that the exact opposite is true.

You cannot cherry pick which official government narrative you want.

Like you are doing?

The guy on the phone with trump says “of course it was obviously conditional!!”

More lies. Get tired of lying much? Liar.

a reply to: TheRedneck

He told us the reason: to get a prosecutor fired. That is called "quid pro quo." We have no treaty with Ukraine that says we must approve their prosecutors. His son sitting on the Board of Directors of the company being investigated is irrelevant to that. It only takes on relevance if you want to go into a money laundering charge.

As was described in the article Sillyolme posted at www.rferl.org...

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.

Yes Joe Biden and the various stakeholders (USA, IMF, EU, etc) in the support deal wanted Shokin out because he WAS NOT doing his job, and they were not going to give the Ukraine that money while the atmosphere of corruption was being allowed to continue to fester. Joe Biden was the 'front' man on the negotiations, not the only interested party.

Shokin was forced out precisely because he was NOT investigating Burisma or any other of the corruption targets. That is completely opposite to what you are saying. After he was replaced Burisma and others were thoroughly investigated.

FURTHERMORE: whatever was found in that investigation whether foul or fair - Hunter Biden had nothing to do with it. The allegations against Burisma were from actions taken BEFORE Hunter Biden had anything to do with the company.

In fact, maybe Hunter Biden is the one that exposed the allegations in the first place, after he joined the board.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Joneselius
Trump's imagined wrongdoings"

It's not imagined.

Yes, it is. Of course it actually takes someone with a brain to be able to discern the difference between 'wrongdoing' and 'Orange Man Bad' TDS imaginings.

I read the transcript. It looks like real evidence to me.

By all means, point to the exact, precise words, from the transcript, that make up this imagined 'wrongdoing' you purport to see.

You can try to dismiss it as not evidence but that's now how any judge is going to see it:

"Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election.

Uh-oh, you're right. There is definitely wrongdoing there - but not by Trump. This will come back and bite the DNC/Hillary/Biden in the rear in a big way. They were the ones soliciting foreign interference in the 2016 election, by Russia and the Ukraine.

Federal law also prohibits a person from soliciting or providing substantial assistance in the solicitation of such a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”"

The only problem here is, Trump wasn't asking for anything that wasn't fully within his Right as our President - look into potential 2016 election interference, or other corruption, in 2016 or the preceding years. He'd be well within his authority even without a specific Treaty providing for cooperation with corruption investigations - but he has that on his side too.

People are filing complaints with DOJ. Show me one link where someone files a complaint against Joe Biden? There are none because there is no evidence.

Patience little one. Unlike the current accusations being tossed out randomly by MSM/radical-leftist-unhinged-TDS-sufferers, the coming attractions will be backed by actual evidence, and the DOJ itself is working on that right now, no external 3rd party complaint necessary.

a reply to: rnaa

Yes Joe Biden and the various stakeholders (USA, IMF, EU, etc) in the support deal wanted Shokin out because he WAS NOT doing his job, and they were not going to give the Ukraine that money while the atmosphere of corruption was being allowed to continue to fester. Joe Biden was the 'front' man on the negotiations, not the only interested party.

I want to repeat that phrase: "while the atmosphere of corruption was being allowed to continue to fester"

What happened after Viktor Shokin was forced to resign/fired on March 29 of 2014? His deputy, Yuriy Sevruk, appointed by Shokin just before he resigned, took over. He left on May 12, 2014. Who took over for him, and has served as Prosecutor General of Ukraine until the election earlier this year? That would be Yuriy Lutsenko.

This Yuriy Lutsenko:

On 13 December 2010 Lutsenko was charged with abuse of office and forgery by Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Pshonka. On 5 November it was already announcement that Lutsenko faced criminal charges for an alleged financial crime involving a less than $5,000 overpayment to his driver. According to Lutsenko the criminal case against him is political persecution. Pshonka has denied this. Lutsenko was also charged with having signed an order whilst on holiday and not having cancelled the traditional "National Militia Day" despite a general instruction from the then Prime Minister to make budgetary savings where possible. Lutsenko has been jailed since 26 December 2010 in Kiev's Lukyanivka Prison. Lutsenko was arrested near his home on 26 December; on 27 December a court ordered his arrest on the grounds that he had been dodging questioning in violation of his written pledge not to leave Kiev. Three criminal cases opened against him where merged into one on 27 January 2011. Lutsenko went on a hunger strike from 22 April till 24 May 2011 in protest against his "preventive punishment".

Lutsenko filed a complaint in a U.S. court on 14 December 2011 against his (Ukrainian) prosecutors, made possible by the Alien Tort Statute, for "illegal arrest and arbitrarily prolonged detention".[59]

On 27 February 2012, after a pre-trial detention of 14 months, Lutsenko was sentenced to fours year in jail (with confiscation of his property) for embezzlement and abuse of office. The total damages caused by Lutsenko to Ukraine's budget had been estimated at $125,000. Lutsenko immediately after his sentence stated he will appeal against sentence. The European Commission stated the day of his sentence "signals the continuation of trials in Ukraine which do not respect international standards as regards fair, transparent and independent legal process"; spokesperson for the United States Department of State Victoria Nuland stated the cases raised "serious concerns about the government of Ukraine's commitment to democracy and the rule of law"; other Council of Europe member have criticised the sentence in similar wording. In a statement issued by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) right after the verdict of 27 February 2012 Lutsenko was named "the victim of a political vendetta"; the next day the President of Pace Jean-Claude Mignon called for his release. Human rights organizations have urged the high courts in Ukraine to overturn the verdict against Lutsenko. On 29 February 2012 the European People's Party demanded "immediate release of Yulia Tymoshenko, Yuriy Lutsenko and other political prisoners; it also insisted the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union should not be signed and ratified until these demands where met. An appeal to the sentence was filed 7 March 2012. Since the EU has shelved the European Union Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Ukraine because of the imprisonment of him and Tymoshenko.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will consider a complaint lodged by Lutsenko on 17 April 2012, Lutsenko claims his arrest and the decision on his detention were arbitrary and unlawful.

On 3 July 2012, the ECHR stated that the arrest of Lutsenko violated his human rights and the court ordered the Ukrainian government to pay 15,000 Euro to Lutsenko as compensation for moral damages.

On 17 August 2012 Lutsenko was sentenced to two years in prison for the extension of an investigative case concerning Valentyn Davydenko, the driver of former Security Service of Ukraine First Deputy Chief Volodymyr Satsiuk, as part of an investigation into the poisoning of then presidential candidate Viktor Yuschenko. He served his time in a prison in the city of Mena. During his imprisonment Lutsenko was moved several times to hospital to receive medical treatment.

Lutsenko lost his appeal on 3 April 2013; this High Court ruling could be challenged in any other Ukrainian court.

The judges of the Higher Specialized Court on Civil and Criminal Cases will on 10 April 2013 announce a ruling on the appeal against the second conviction of Lutsenko regarding the poisoning of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko; this will not influence the term of Lutsenko's imprisonment.

The Yuriy Lutsenko who received a four-year prison sentence for embezzlement and abuse of office? The same Yuriy Lutsenko who was later sentenced to two years in connection with a poisoning attempt on the President of Ukraine? That Yuriy Lutsenko?

Yeah, removing Viktor Shokin, who has never been convicted of a crime, and replacing him with a pardoned felon sounds like a real good way to stop corruption... well worth withholding a billion dollars in aid.

Now consider who it was that finally announced that the investigation into the Burisma Group had cleared everyone... that was... wait for it... Yuriy Lutsenko! That same Yuriy Lutsenko who was, despite all the jail time, despite needing to be pardoned two years before taking the office of Prosecutor General of Ukraine away from Viktor Shokin, despite being the chosen one to go after and investigate the Burisma Group, who now says no harm, no foul... everyone was innocent.

Sounds more like the funds were intended to be used for corruption and by damn all these governments weren't happy with the lack of corruption under Viktor Shokin. Ukraine can do better!

Hunter Biden had nothing to do with it. The allegations against Burisma were from actions taken BEFORE Hunter Biden had anything to do with the company.

That's what I said in my reply to Sillyolme. Oh, dear, you didn't read the part you copied over, did you? I said that Hunter Biden was irrelevant unless you wanted to include concerns over money laundering. So far as I know, those concerns have not been raised. Should someone do so?

In fact, maybe Hunter Biden is the one that exposed the allegations in the first place, after he joined the board.

If so, he didn't do a very good job. The Hero of Integrity, Yuriy Lutsenko, failed to find any corruption in the most corrupt nation on earth.

Now, before I drown myself in sarcasm, how about you try just once to read up on what you are trying to debate on? You can start with the posts you reply to.

TheRedneck