Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never suggested that he did and I never suggested he was a criminal aside from being a literal crackhead.
He was merely hired to buy influence over Joe Biden, just like many other companies have done before, so that the company's criminal activity could be swept under the rug by firing the prosecutor going after them and ending the investigation.
The crackhead son didn't necissarily do anything illegal, he just profits off of his father's corruption which is fine.
Furthermore, there's no way to prove that Biden did what he did specifically because the company bought him off by hitting his crackhead son so there's no criminal investigation that would harm him either. The only people that would be harmed by that investigation criminally would be those at Buresma.... but what the leakers were worried about was potential political harm to Joe Biden by exposing his likely but unprovable corruption.
#1 - Most of the EU, WorldBank and the International Monetary Fund all wanted Shokin removed, not just the US and certainly not just Biden.
#2 - The Burisma investigation is still open, but "dormant", today, just like it was when Shokin was running the show.
#3 - The Burisma investigation only covered the years 2010-2012. Hunter Biden joined the Board in 2014.
#4 - There is no evidence of any "corruption" on the part of VP Biden.
No, the "whistleblower" didn't say that, an official "said it" to the whistleblower.
Further, the "transcript" that was released says it is NOT word-for-word right on the document itself.
Now you're going to believe the whistleblower's sources over the White House?
Read the Whistle Blowers own memo. It is a quote from the actual whistle blower. Are you saying the "whistle blower didn't write his own memo that started this whole thing and an "official" wrote it?
Then you make no sense. If Hunter Biden didn't do anything illegal, investigating him serves what purpose?
It's not investigating him, it's investigating the company and the "situation" surrounding the prosecutor being fired and the reason that prosecutor wad investigating the company to begin with.
It was never an attempt to go after either Biden legally.
Numerous outlets are now reporting that Vindman testified that Trump made the release of military aid "contingent" on the opening of investigations into Burisma, Biden and Crowdstrike. There is a latin phrase for that. Can someone remind us what it is?
It's not investigating him, it's investigating the company and the "situation" surrounding the prosecutor being fired and the reason that prosecutor wad investigating the company to begin with.
It was never an attempt to go after either Biden legally.
It is unfortunate, then, that the President specifically mentioned Biden, and that the President's personal lawyer has repeatedly referenced the Bidens, and that the US President wanted the Ukrainian President to meet with Giuliani, who was not associated with the American government in any way, shape or form.
Originally Posted by Goodnight So Ukraine was supposed to get $391M in March and 6 months later Trump is still withholding funds and neither Zellenksyy or Mulvaney knows why, sure that’s believable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Who told you trump is still withholding "those" funds? You sure it is not something additional to the original congressional approval?
Those funds in question were paid to the Ukraine. There are additional funds in the talks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
No one has questioned that they withheld funds even Mick Mulvaney stated the same as did Volker and Taylor. They never indicated the specific reason since the corruption was being addressed according to DOD officals. Mick Mulvaney has been unable to answer such a simple question.
Seems like a read it somewhere in the thread, to have replied like that.
The funds were paid, late August. Before all this blew up in the Activist Media, as a spin zone.
Numerous outlets are now reporting that Vindman testified that Trump made the release of military aid "contingent" on the opening of investigations into Burisma, Biden and Crowdstrike. There is a latin phrase for that. Can someone remind us what it is?
Seems like a read it somewhere in the thread, to have replied like that.
The funds were paid, late August. Before all this blew up in the Activist Media, as a spin zone.
The funds were authorized well before the July 25 call and released in late September just prior to expiring at the end of the fiscal year. The fact remains was that word was sent from Trump through Mulvaney with no explanation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
