a reply to: pianopraze
Been watching this for a while now; only recently started putting it all together so it made sense.
My reasoning was not based on hard facts, admittedly, but rather on observations of human nature. Leopards rarely change their spots, and people
rarely change their habits... even when those habits become hazardous to them. We are all creatures of habit. This fact is understood by law
enforcement well, leading to the concept of a modus operandi
Since 2016, here's what I have seen:
- Trump was accused of "Russian collusion." Yet, Hillary Clinton is self-evidently guilty of collusion with
Russian government officials, via Christopher Steele and the now-infamous "Steele Dossier."
- Trump has been accused of obstructing justice on numerous occasions. Yet Hillary Clinton is on videotape ordering destruction of subpoenaed
- Trump has been accused now of an improper "quid pro quo." Yet, Joe Biden is on tape literally bragging about the highly questionable "quid pro quo"
he executed overtly in Ukraine, where he had family interests.
- Trump is regularly accused of lying. Yet we have evidence that many, many of his political opponents have lied on a regular basis: Adam Schiff
"parodying" the call transcript before his committee and the public with statements like "I want you to get me dirt on my opponent, understand? Lots
of dirt!" James Comey has been caught so many times I can't keep up with them all. MeCabe had prosecution recommended for "lack of candor" (aka
lying). That's just a few, and the examples which were caught with evidence pale in comparison to the number of highly suspicious statements.
what we have is a group that seems to have projection as their modus operandi
. That makes me question, when I hear an accusation, if it is
projection. I have heard many of these accusations/projections recently in the impeachment trials: bribery sticks out in my mind. So naturally I look
for evidence that the one doing the accusing is in fact guilty of bribery. That's how projection works.
I also look at the timeline. Not very long ago, Nancy Pelosi was dismissing formal impeachment proceedings out of hand. Only after the "whistleblower"
made allegations concerning the Ukraine did she reverse course unexpectedly and without explanation, agreeing to formalized impeachment proceedings.
Adam Schiff as well upped his rhetoric, culminating in yesterday's impassioned plea for someone to impeach Trump. Several witnesses (who witnessed
nothing relevant) have also suddenly come forward with all sorts of circumstantial data based on their own connations of things they were told.
This all tells me two things are likely:
- Ukraine contains information which the DNC does not want exposed and is willing to literally tear
apart their own party and the country at large to keep it secret, and
- The actions being covered up involve bribery and money laundering.
Hunter Biden is at the heart of this. Joe Biden is a lot of things:
creepy, scary, confused, possibly even demented; but he is also a family man. There is no way he would stand aside and let bad things happen to his
son, law be damned. That in itself is not a bad thing, but taken in context with the Ukraine situation surrounding Hunter, it does appear on the
surface that Hunter Biden was leading the corruption in Ukraine and likely shoveling money back to the DNC... in other words, money laundering.
Using Burisma, Hunter could access government funds intended to aid the country in infrastructure. He could then, as a Chairman, direct those moneys
to private contractors. Those private contractors could hike their rates (what else is new in any government?) and still make a pretty profit while
making charitable contributions to political campaigns back here. Money is then funneled back to Ukraine through foreign aid, paid back to
contractors, and donated directly to the DNC coffers. [i]Ad infinitum. No one here is going to question political contributions to sitting
politicians for fear of reprisal, and Ukraine is corrupt and being well paid to keep their mouth shut.
Except Viktor Shokin
, the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine who was the one Joe Biden had
fired. He has made plenty of claims that he was given a list of people to not prosecute by US officials, and that he was attempting to investigate
Burisma. The official narrative is that he was corrupt and dragging his feet on the Burisma investigation, but that doesn't quite add up. It was
during his reign that the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, left the country to avoid prosecution, and only returned after Shokin was removed. I
have looked and find plenty of allegations of corruption, but no proof. The closest I have found is an old case where two of Shokin's prosecutors were
found with hoards of diamonds and other valuables in their homes, which was taken as evidence of bribery. Now, who keeps ill-begotten diamonds in
their homes? I would expect the diamonds to be either stored elsewhere or liquidated and the assets stashed away in a nice offshore bank account.
This sounds awfully familiar to what Trump has experienced: multiple accusation, no proof, but close associates imprisoned for charges under strange
circumstances (like an early-morning armed raid on Roger Stone for a non-violent indictment).
Oh, and now that there are rumors of Ukrainian investigations resuming, Zlochevsky has disappeared again... interesting.
OP, you seem to have stumbled onto another entrance to this rabbit hole. I warn you now: watch your step. It turns into a Hollow Earth when you start