Joe Biden cashed $200,000 check from brother James’ business deal

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The European Commission said Shokin was doing a good job and Ukraine should get the billion.

Despite Biden’s claim, Europeans WEREN’T trying to oust Ukraine prosecutor targeting Hunter’s firm






Obama administration signed off on $1B for Ukraine Biden threatened to hold back: report

Blinkin also praised Shokin in 2015. https://grabien.com/story.php?id=439565

Despite Murdoch's lyong publications attempts to rewrite history, the facts exist from 2016 that show that the EU didn't want Shokin
https://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/04/18/fighting-culture-of-corruption-in-ukraine-pub-63364

Rather than trying to fix everything at once, Ukraine’s government and international partners should focus on reform of the justice system, especially the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the courts. Change there needs to begin at the top.

Then let's look at the report that the Post took a quote of of context and you quoted.
https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvirkkkr58fyw_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vk036jhcb1zg
It seems that the Ukrainian President and parliament made commitments that had not yet been completed, which is what the post taken out of context refers to.
The report goes on to say the anti-corruption process is not what it should be.

While the setting-up of this new specialised anti-corruption prosecution office has begun, it nevertheless remains to be ensured that its independence and integrity are recognised beyond doubt. Shortcomings in the selection process for the leadership of the anti-corruption prosecution office such as the lack of objective track-record criteria for the nomination of the members of the selection committee and the candidates, highlighted the need for the relevant legal and institutional framework to be further improved in order to fully ensure the office's independence and integrity. To this end, the selection, appointment and dismissal procedures for the office’s leadership and staff must follow stricter independence and integrity safeguards. The specialised anti-corruption prosecution office should become operational as a matter of top priority; it is an indispensable component of an effective and independent institutional framework for combating high-level corruption. On 30 November, the General Prosecutor appointed the head of the specialised anti-corruption prosecution.

Basically the report says Shokin appointed someone but didn't have a process in place that made them independent and ensured integrity.

 

[QP!]

If Joe Biden weren't in politics and (variously) a Senator, VP, or President, would any of those companies, individuals, etc., have given a drug addled, cashiered ex-officer, and /or mediocre intellect with no experience in the field(s) of knowledge or business so much as a fucking nickel?

The answer is clearly NO! Bagman and Joke's brother were selling 'The Big Guy' and his political connections. People were paying for access. Bagman and Jim Biden on their own were worthless to the people giving them money.

yes you stupid addled brained nitwit.

Yes HUNTER SOLD WHO HE KNEW.

Something that happens in politics EVERY SINGLE DAY SOMEWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD AND IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Bush, Carter, Clinton, Nixon, and on and on and on. Let alone Governors, Royalty, Despot leaders.

If you know people in power, and you want to go out and leverage that, you will likely find many job offers AND THAT IS LEGAL.


That is why if the new Politician achieving high power was a lawyer (as so many are), their prior law firms almost always instantly register as Lobbyist Firms, because there will be a perception due to WHO THEY KNOW, that they will have better access.

IT is perfectly legal as long as the POLITICIAN DOES NOT BREAK ANY LAWS in dealing with them.

Buhs, Clinton, Nixon and Hunter CALL ALL sell their perception of access to anyone who wants to buy it and there is ZERO illegal about that.

 

[domer76]

If Joe Biden weren't in politics and (variously) a Senator, VP, or President, would any of those companies, individuals, etc., have given a drug addled, cashiered ex-officer, and /or mediocre intellect with no experience in the field(s) of knowledge or business so much as a fucking nickel?

The answer is clearly NO! Bagman and Joke's brother were selling 'The Big Guy' and his political connections. People were paying for access. Bagman and Jim Biden on their own were worthless to the people giving them money.

No shit, Einstein. They were selling the illusion of access and people paid for it. Now, find the fucking crime in that, shitstain.

 

[QP!]

When persons in government do it, it's called illegal. I'd say at this point it is clear that the Biden family was selling influence and that's illegal.

One example is getting the prosecutor in Ukraine fired. That saved Burisma from investigation. Do you know anything about the guy that replaced the prosecutor Biden wanted fired? Maybe you should look him up...

Hunter WAS NOT in government you brain addled simpleton. And there is ZERO evidence of Joe doing anything illegal.

Ivanka and Jared and DJT were when they received their benefits from foreign gov'ts breaking laws.

And see above and lean about SHokin yourself, because if Joe defied all those parties who wanted him fired at the time, you derps would be citing that as the proof of Joe's corruption. that all those parties were calling for him to be fired, including the IMF who was going to stop sending Ukraine money due to Shokin, BEFORE Biden was even involved.

 

[ExpressLane]

Hunter WAS NOT in government you brain addled simpleton. And there is ZERO evidence of Joe doing anything illegal.

Ivanka and Jared and DJT were when they received their benefits from foreign gov'ts breaking laws.

And see above and lean about SHokin yourself, because if Joe defied all those parties who wanted him fired at the time, you derps would be citing that as the proof of Joe's corruption. that all those parties were calling for him to be fired, including the IMF who was going to stop sending Ukraine money due to Shokin, BEFORE Biden was even involved.

There is 200k check you moron. Unless there is a check or wire transfer where Joe gave James a 200K loan that is money laundering.

 

[ExpressLane]

Despite Murdoch's lyong publications attempts to rewrite history, the facts exist from 2016 that show that the EU didn't want Shokin
https://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/04/18/fighting-culture-of-corruption-in-ukraine-pub-63364


Then let's look at the report that the Post took a quote of of context and you quoted.
https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvirkkkr58fyw_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vk036jhcb1zg
It seems that the Ukrainian President and parliament made commitments that had not yet been completed, which is what the post taken out of context refers to.
The report goes on to say the anti-corruption process is not what it should be.

Basically the report says Shokin appointed someone but didn't have a process in place that made them independent and ensured integrity.

So straight out of Blink's mouth doesn't work for you or out of the EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos mouth does not work for you? Have you always been a dumbass or is it a more recent thing.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

When persons in government do it, it's called illegal. I'd say at this point it is clear that the Biden family was selling influence and that's illegal.

One example is getting the prosecutor in Ukraine fired. That saved Burisma from investigation. Do you know anything about the guy that replaced the prosecutor Biden wanted fired? Maybe you should look him up...

Of course you'd SAY that, problem is PROVING it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Of course you'd SAY that, problem is PROVING it.

Did you look the replacement up?

 

[QP!]

There is 200k check you moron. Unless there is a check or wire transfer where Joe gave James a 200K loan that is money laundering.

Only proof of money laundering is money laundering.

No check alone is proof of anything.

You fucking simpleton. Are checks a new concept to you? Do you start with the assumption any check written or given is money laundering or do you need proof?

 

[QP!]

So straight out of Blink's mouth doesn't work for you or out of the EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos mouth does not work for you? Have you always been a dumbass or is it a more recent thing.

Listen up you simple minded buffoon.

Even if you want to accept that some people thought Shokin was not corrupt it was NOT up to Biden to defy the US policy position, as laid out by the Republicans in the Senate, the State Department and WH positions, Homeland Security, and across three successive Ambassadors to Ukraine from GW Bush, Obama and Trump. And that is ignoring all the agencies in the rest of the world also wanting Shokin gone.

So for Biden to be the sole voice at the time supporting keeping Shokin in, would be exactly the proof you would be using now to say he was trying to keep a corrupt prosecutor in place to protect Burisma.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Listen up you simple minded buffoon.

Even if you want to accept that some people thought Shokin was not corrupt it was NOT up to Biden to defy the US policy position, as laid out by the Republicans in the Senate, the State Department and WH positions, Homeland Security, and across three successive Ambassadors to Ukraine from GW Bush, Obama and Trump. And that is ignoring all the agencies in the rest of the world also wanting Shokin gone.

So for Biden to be the sole voice at the time supporting keeping Shokin in, would be exactly the proof you would be using now to say he was trying to keep a corrupt prosecutor in place to protect Burisma.

Who replaced Shokin?

 

[QP!]

Who replaced Shokin?

We have gone down this stupid rabbit hole with you prior Terry, and shown you how stupid you were then.

You sure you want to go down that road again?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

We have gone down this stupid rabbit hole with you prior Terry, and shown you how stupid you were then.

You sure you want to go down that road again?

Ah, the old resort to ad hominem when you can't prove your point...

Who was Shokin's replacement?

 

[QP!]

Ah, the old resort to ad hominem when you can't prove your point...

Who was Shokin's replacement?

It is not an ad hominem to point out we covered this ground prior and proved you stupid then.

You can ask now and after we prove you stupid now, you can then ask again 10 minutes later, and so on.

If your point is to troll with stupid questions then pointing it out is fair game.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is not an ad hominem to point out we covered this ground prior and proved you stupid then.

You can ask now and after we prove you stupid now, you can then ask again 10 minutes later, and so on.

If your point is to troll with stupid questions then pointing it out is fair game.

Then, it should be a simple matter for you to give an answer to that question if you are so sure of yourself and previous discussions about it.

 

[QP!]

Then, it should be a simple matter for you to give an answer to that question if you are so sure of yourself and previous discussions about it.

If you want to play that same stupid game over and over again we will cut to the prior ending answer and not waste the time again with your trolling.

answer this question first.

What role did the US or International community have in picking the successor? Provide your proof.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If you want to play that same stupid game over and over again we will cut to the prior ending answer and not waste the time again with your trolling.

answer this question first.

What role did the US or International community have in picking the successor? Provide your proof.

Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano of the lobbying firm Blue Star, who were being paid for work by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, pushed the State Department to advocate for Yuri Lutsenko's placement as Shokin's replacement.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...s-close-with-replacement-ukrainian-prosecutor

Right up until Joke Biden applied pressure on the Ukraine government to remove Shokin, the State Department was happy with him...

In a letter dated June 9, 2015, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland wrote "We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government" in a letter that was delivered to the prosecutor two days.

Nuland wrote that "Secretary Kerry asked me to reply on his behalf" to let Shokin know "he enjoyed the full support of the United States as he set out to fight endemic corruption in the former Soviet republic," Just The News wrote.
https://thepostmillennial.com/state...adict-democrats-ukraine-impeachment-narrative

Ukrainian prosecutor general Biden helped install was tied to Hunter
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...ll-was-tied-to-hunter-n570014#google_vignette

Ukraine prosecutor whose ouster Biden pushed was ‘threat,’ says Devon Archer
https://nypost.com/2023/08/04/vikto...risma-says-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer/

These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story/

Lutsenko was chosen specifically for his willingness to be corrupt--something he'd been tried and convicted of doing prison time for--for his incompetence, not being a lawyer or having any legal training something the Ukrainian legislature had to push an emergency bill through to change the laws there so he could serve as a prosecutor, for his connections to Hunter Biden et al., as shown through State Department memorandums and such.

 

[QP!]

Before we debunk this stuff, make the connection to Joe.

 

[LurchAddams]

Looks like Joe loaned somebody some money and got repaid for it.

Next

Yeah, that's what it looks like to me. Just because a Republican flame-thrower claims it was part of "an illegal business deal" doesn't make it true. As a matter of fact, you can probably bet the Republican is lying.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Before we debunk this stuff, make the connection to Joe.