Show of Hands

So are you suggesting the Ukrainians, who are not pro Russian or pro Trump, would make stuff up about Biden?

They refused to open a sham investigation even as Trump was trying to bribe them with congressionally allocated money.

Trump wanted an official Ukrainian investigation into his political opponent to use during his campaign and applied maximum pressure to try to get it.

You still haven’t answered the question. If the Ukrainians had started an investigation into Biden, which they never did, do you think the Ukrainians would make stuff up about Biden?

And if the Ukrainians actually did find that Biden was involved in some serious corruption, isn’t that exactly what American voters would want to know about in making their decision when voting for Biden ?

Again, Hillary Clinton didn't molest and eat children in a pizza parlor basement. She wasn't knocking on death's door either but Trump and his surrogates pushed those narratives. They didn't need to be true. In his scheme with Biden he just wanted an ongoing investigation to aid in his false rhetoric.

Scheme with Biden? What are you talking about ? This would be an Investigation into Biden by the Ukrainians. This was not an investigation by Trump or his surrogates. We wouldn’t even have known that such an investigation had been suggested. The Durham investigation is going on now, and we don’t have details about that. Only if the investigation had been conducted by the Ukrainians and had turned up evidence of corruption would ever hear about it.

Do you not get that there was nothing to investigate but Trump tried to bribe a foreign government with our tax dollars into starting a bogus investigation to help himself politically? That's really too much for you to grasp?

You're staring at real life bribery, extortion, and a coverup but can't stop talking about fake corruption. 😂

You actually think that with everything that’s been reported about Biden and Hunter Biden being on the board of an energy company and all the money he was paid and also the money from China, you actually think there is no smoke there to investigate something? You can’t be serious .

Yeah, I think people like Hunter Biden and Ivanka Trump get special treatment. I'm not aware of any silver spoon laws. Maybe there should be though. Meanwhile, Donald Trump appears to have committed actual crimes and you refuse to acknowledge that.

Get real Attaki

I just did and you showed up and failed to even articulate a thought as usual. You add nothing to SOH you should just delete your account. You're a waste of bandwidth.

Attikai, it is pretty clear at this point that you are in a bubble. I don’t fault you for that , the Media deliberately withholds information and is trying to direct the narrative to protect Biden. But if you look hard enough there are some real journalists out there , and John Solomon is one of them . I share some of the facts he has uncovered below .

From an article from a few days ago ...

By his own admission in a 2018 speech, Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to strong-arm Ukraine into firing Shokin, a prosecutor that he and his office knew was investigating Burisma.

Biden has said he forced Shokin’s firing because he and Western allies believed the prosecutor wasn’t aggressive enough in fighting corruption.

Shokin disputes that account, telling both me and ABC News that he was fired specifically because he would not stand down from investigating Burisma. In fact, Shokin alleges, he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden about his Burisma work and payments when he got the axe.

johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

I encourage you to read the entire article . It is chalked full of facts that indicate the Bidens are very corrupt indeed. It is completely understandable that President Trump would want Ukraine to investigate this corruption. The other part to this , and probably the more important part , is the Bidens are just one part of the larger investigation into Ukraine and the part it played in RussiaGate . There are plenty of problematic and worrying actions to investigate when it comes to the Biden. It’s not a conspiracy theory . These facts need to be known by the American people .

archives.cjr.org/politics/john_solomon_gives_us_less_tha.php

The piece from 2007 you posted doesn’t address the evidence that Solomon uncovered in the present case. Whatever you may think of Solomon’s political views and biases , ( and we all have them ) the fact remains that .... “Shokin’s testimony about being fired because he was investigating corruption at Burisma and that he was just about to interview Hunter Biden because of suspected corruption “ remains a stubborn fact. Shokin reported the above to ABC and not just to Solomon.

I’m not sure I follow . Are you saying the Ukrainians would manufacture evidence against Biden ?

They would have to, to "find" it.

And to be clear, they wouldn’t need to manufacture or find evidence to serve the nefarious political purposes of a desperate despot. Just publicly announcing Biden was "under investigation", despite there being zero justification to open such an "investigation", would do.

There is no evidence that we would have even known such an investigation was being done by the Ukrainians had they conducted one. The Durham investigation is going on now in other countries and we don’t have details about what countries are conducting investigations for that right now. Only true information coming out of a completed Ukrainian investigation had the potential to be helpful to Trump, and it would only be helpful if Biden was actually guilty of something. If Biden were corrupt voters would need to know that.

If the investigation was legitimate, based on a reasonable suspicion or credible allegation, and remained secret until completed, yes. Which, setting aside that there has never been a reasonable suspicion or credible allegation of illegal behavior in this case, would be of no benefit to the failing despot, and no detriment to Biden. No one not on the case would even know. But I’m pretty sure there is something on the record about encouraging Ukraine to make a public announcement about an investigation into Biden, based on a baseless Trumped up allegation - and not the one Kholodnitskiy made saying there was no investigation into either of the Bidens, and no basis for opening one.

I’m not sure where you are getting your information from but you are missing a lot of facts . The investigative reporter John Solomon has been actively researching these matters and there is a lot of sketchy things to investigate when it comes to Joe and Hunter Biden. See below

By his own admission in a 2018 speech, Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to strong-arm Ukraine into firing Shokin, a prosecutor that he and his office knew was investigating Burisma.

Biden has said he forced Shokin’s firing because he and Western allies believed the prosecutor wasn’t aggressive enough in fighting corruption.

Shokin disputes that account, telling both me and ABC News that he was fired specifically because he would not stand down from investigating Burisma. In fact, Shokin alleges, he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden about his Burisma work and payments when he got the axe.

It’s very important that you familiarize yourself with all the facts . John Solomon’s article is a good place to start . There is a lot to investigate when it comes to the Bidens and it’s legitimate. See link

johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

I'm familiar with the conspiracy theory and the after the fact spin. Along with virtually everyone else, I've dismissed it.

You’ve dismissed the facts uncovered by John Solomon just recently? The information he acquired through a FOIA ? Burisma was being investigated for corruption along with Hunter Biden. And ironically the only person who actually did a “quid pro quo” was Joe Biden, and not Trump! The Ukrainians never investigated Biden because of Trump and Trump actually gave aid to Ukraine.

What is your basis for dismissing John Solomon’s reporting in that article?

There is nothing in the three brief emails that is relevant or wasn’t already publicly known. There is nothing in the "report" or the handful of linked documents that implicates Hunter Biden in Zlochevsky's corrupt activities, the investigation of which predates Biden's taking the job with Burisma. All already established. And dismissed as irrelevant. There is nothing in the "report" that challenges Joe Biden's efforts, as part of his official duties and in coordination with many European governments, to pressure Ukraine to remove Shokin. Also already established. It’s possible Solomon could inadvertently uncover a relevant truth, but his record of credibility (lack thereof) suggests it would be unlikely for it to still be a truth by the time he "reported" on it.

www.justsecurity.org/66962/a-dozen-questions-for-john-solomon/

mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

.

And so there it is ... you are going to take your stand on the position that Solomon can’t be trusted ? He was part of the original debunking of the RussiaGate hoax and was right . The entire Media and the Democrats pushes that hoax for 3 years and were wrong . And there was no admission of being wrong which is nuts . Now Solomon is uncovering facts on Biden and you say that is false too. It remains a stubborn fact that Shokin told both ABC News and Solomon that he was fired specifically because he would not stand down from investigating Burisma. And that was while Hunter was on the board. That fact doesn’t change and is absolutely in need of being investigated

And this is hilarious your source is Sidney Blumenthal? The activist, writer, and political aide, former aide to President Bill Clinton; a long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, and formerly employed by the Clinton Foundation. . Ya right :). He doesn’t have an agenda but Solomon can’t be trusted ? Wow . Brace yourself . The IG report and the Durham report is coming :)

No. I’m taking the position that there is no evidentiary basis for an accusation or investigation of either Biden regarding Ukraine, and that Solomon didn’t “discover” what no one else has been able to find. That Solomon appears to have been involved in the disinformation campaign from the start and cannot be trusted as a source on anything, is unrelated, but still noteworthy.

I included to link to the media bias site, even though it’s fair to assume most of us already use it, to highlight that the justsecurity site is among the least biased and most reliably factual sites available.

How is Shokin being fired for investigating corruption at Burisma not an adequate evidentiary basis for further investigation of the Bidens ?

If Just security is posting an article by Blumenthal it’s highly doubtful that it is unbiased . What about John Durham? He has the reputation for being a fair and tough investigator . Will you accept the findings of his investigation and the possible criminal indictments he may bring forward ?

I don’t have an opinion about John Durham, and I couldn’t care less about “possible” anything. I’m interested in facts, evidence, and certainly if there are the facts and evidence to support it, an indictment. I’m dismissive of unsupported allegations, and especially, of obvious attempts to disinform.

I agree with you completely on your last statement. So your position on Shokin’s testimony about being fired because he was investigating corruption at Burisma and that he was just about to interview Hunter Biden because of suspected corruption . Is your position that that is a false characterization?

Yes, absolutely false, no question, as already reported by those who worked with him, and those in Ukraine who wanted him out, for cause, as much as the west did. The timeline doesn’t work to support his claim either. The whole story has been solidly and repeatedly debunked by everyone who has looked into it, and even your conspiracy theorist/propagandist, who claims to have found something new, offered nothing. New or otherwise.

Ok. I’m game. Present some evidence that shows that the following is false , namely that “Shokin’s testimony about being fired because he was investigating corruption at Burisma and that he was just about to interview Hunter Biden because of suspected corruption “ is false.

Like I (and seriously, EVERYONE else already said), the timeline for that after-the-fact claim doesn’t work. Whether or not Shokin was or was planning on investigating Biden (and there is no evidence to support his claim three years after the fact that he was), that was most certainly not why the US or the rest of the west wanted Shokin out.

www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031516_Herbst_Testimony.pdf

Page 10.

Here’s an old (early 2016) article from a non-affiliated source celebrating Shokin’s firing:

www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

.

How does what you said above relate to anything in this poll ?

How could there be a specter of suspicion if the investigation doesn’t result in anything? The Ukrainians would be performing the investigation and probably coordinating with the Durham investigation. Nothing from the Durham investigation has leaked and there is no reason to think Ukraine would be publicizing anything . If after the investigation was completed something bad came out against Biden, I’m sure you , as a potential Biden would want to know about it .

Potential Biden voter ... I mean

Love Scott Adams! He has a way of summing things up like not many can.

I totally agree. And the part I left out, because I can’t fit it in , is which of those two outcomes are impeachable? Discovering whether Biden is corrupt is good for the country and part of the larger Durham investigation. It is part of the duty of the United States government to expose corruption especially if it’s relevant to the 2020 election

I went to the link and read the whole thing. Very well said!

I thought so too. Scott Adams also observed that unfortunately the Republicans and even Trump to some extent did not play this well. They should have attacked the framing which has been totally bogus. And that is what Adams is doing in this tweet . This all started as part of the legitimate investigation into corruption and Biden’s probable corruption. The Democrats , with the Media’s help have managed to reframe the events to make Trump look bad. The weird thing is they never take the statements to their logical conclusion and are able to persuade people into negative impressions without seeing the whole picture. The Dems have some persuasion experts working for them. But mostly it’s possible because the Media still has an air of credibility for a lot of people . The Media is all saying the same thing and it’s all BS

Yes. The Biden’s are dirty as well as the Clintons. The dirty DNC will be exposed next

I like these comments; “It is obvious unless you are so far left you can't see truth from your front door, that Biden, Obama and Hillary used their positions of power to extort Ukraine's corrupt government to give them kickbacks. Biden's method of choice was to get his son appointed to positions that appeared legit but clearly were not. This mostly happened inside the Ukraine. Virtually impossible for the U.S. to investigate but quite possible for Ukraine to investigate. So the best possible way to do this would be to ask the government of Ukraine to investigate this corruption. Even if there was arm twisting (quid pro quo) so what? No one is above the law and Biden broke the law and he needs investigation as do Obama and Hillary.”

“Joe and Hunter pulled off a similar scheme in China where Joe was also point man on policy there just as he was point man on Ukraine policy. Seems like a pattern forming.”

“I draw a sharp distinction between using the power of the U.S. Presidency to induce either U.S. or foreign officials to investigate something an U.S. office-holder did, vs. something a mere aspirant to office did. Either may provide fodder for a campaign, but one is using the power of one's office to attack a merely political foe, while the other is legitimate law enforcement. If it's law enforcement, I don't see why the presence or absence of a quid pro quo matters in the least. If it's simultaneously law enforcement and something that will be useful in a re-election campaign, tough. You could say that about anything a President does while in office to help his country: "He didn't do it to help the county, he just wanted to be re-elected!"
#2 Texan99 on 2019-11-04 22:32