America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Time, mainly. I only have so much. As things stand, I'm already fairly behind in responding to posts in this thread. However, I did take the time to download a copy of the report and verify that the 2 passages you quoted were in the report.



So we agree that Mueller looked for evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in a crime and couldn't find enough to charge Trump with a crime. As to what the Mueller report -did- conclude, I don't agree with at least some of it, starting with part of its opening:

**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**

I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.

Mueller said this...A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. When he later says there was not enough evidence to charge a crime that in no way can be construed to mean there was no evidence since Mueller said that such a statement would be false.

This started with you posting something about what was claimed to be in the Mueller report and now instead of admitting that your claim is false you just want to argue that you don't agree with what is in the Mueller report. This would be prima facia evidence that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Stating Mueller said something is a matter of fact or not. In this case the fact is your statement was not something Mueller had said. Please take the time to retract the false statement. Stating you don't like something Mueller said is opinion.

As to believing what Mueller found and reported on, Mueller used the FBI and did extensive investigation to reach his conclusions. You on the other hand have done no research and seem to think your conclusions have as much weight as Mueller. That is nonsense. It wasn't just Mueller that found that the Russian government interfered. The Senate also did an investigation and reached the same conclusions based on their investigation. Groups with the power and capability to do extensive investigation all reached the same conclusion. You simply disagree without any evidence to support your conclusion.

As to the Seth Rich claim, Seth Rich's family sued Fox News about those claims being broadcast on Fox and Fox paid a settlement rather than fighting them. The claims that Seth Rich leaked the files is false.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/seth-rich-family-settles-lawsuit-233043072.html

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

A lot of claims are made above. Is the only one you disagree with the last one, aka the "Within weeks" one?

Which claims do you think are true?

Do you have any evidence that this claim from the New York Post has been debunked?



It would seem you're confusing investigations. The Reuters article is talking about an investigation that was still ongoing in 2019. From their article:

**
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.
**

All NABU is saying is that they are -not- investigating anything related to Hunter Biden's time in Burisma. They make no claim that Burisma wasn't previously under investigation during Hunter Biden's time there.



I believe it exists because the New York Post said it did. That doesn't mean that it should be easy to find.

Time is a funny thing. 2012 is not 2016.
You seem to have problems reading and understanding English.

Ukraine would open an investigation into the period when Hunter Biden was involved with Burisma if there were compelling new testimony in Ukraine,

There was no investigation in 2019. Ukraine said they would only open an investigation if new testimony was presented to them.
The previous investigation into Burisma lasted from 2010-2012. It was over in 2012. There was no investigation after 2012. Gosh.. who should we believe? The people that actually DO the investigations or a media news story that lists no source for their claim? More prima facia evidence that you don't know the difference between fact an opinion.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How you can believe that, I have no idea. The entire article provides evidence that strongly suggest that the vaccines had little if any positive effect, and plenty of harmful effects. The paragraph above itself doesn't even -mention- vaccines as helping with any of the zymotic diseases. The second paragraph only adds to the evidence that vaccines had little if any positive effect with these zymotic diseases:

**
The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown’s seminal work, “The Modern Rise Of Populations” (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John & Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 per cent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, vol.2, “there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries.”
**



I never claimed anyone had made that claim. My stance is the exact opposite, that vaccines are completely innefective, as well as harmful.



If you'd like to quote from your link, by all means do so. I'll quote the passage you're referring to from Gary Krasner's article:

**
By 1919, England and Wales had become one of the least vaccinated countries, and had only 28 deaths from smallpox, out of a population of 37.8 million people. By contrast, during that same year, out of a population of 10 million—all triply vaccinated over the prior 6 years—the Philippine Islands registered 47,368 deaths from smallpox. The epidemic came after the culmination of a ruthless 15-year compulsory vaccination campaign by the U.S., in which the native population—young and old— were forcibly vaccinated (several times), literally against their will. In a speech condemning the smallpox vaccine reprinted in the Congressional Record of 12/21/37, William Howard Hay, M.D. said, “ . . . the Philippines suffered the worst attack of smallpox, the worst epidemic three times over, that had ever occurred in the history of the islands, and it was almost three times as fatal. The death rate ran as high as 60 per cent in certain areas, where formerly it had been 10 and 15 per cent.” In the province of Rizal, for example, smallpox mortalities increased from an average 3 per cent (before vaccination) to 67 per cent during 1918 and 1919. All told, after 10 years (1911-1920) of a compulsory U.S. program which administered 25 million vaccinations to the Philippine population of 10 million, there had been 170,000 cases, and more than 75,000 deaths from smallpox.
**

In the Philippines when Spain was the power in charge and prior to the vaccination of the population 40,000 people per year were dying from smallpox. Let's just look at the years 1891-1898, that would mean in 8 years, 320,000 people died from small pox. In the 10 years from 1911-1920, only 75,000 people died from smallpox. Which is a better time period, before vaccination or after vaccination?

 

[Scott]

It certainly suggests that that Pozharskyi was thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father, who just happened to be the Vice President of the U.S. at the time.

Please present your proof that every time anyone meets someone else they always discuss business.

Please present -your- proof that I ever made such a claim.

**
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
**

Is the only influence Hunter has his father? Or is Hunter a US lawyer with many contacts?

Irrelevant. The point is that this is a clear signal that Pozharskyl, and by extension Burisma, was paying Hunter Biden his salary of up to $50,000 a month for the sole purpose of getting Hunter Biden to use his influence on his father. You'll note that the timing of Hunter being put on Burisma's payroll and Pozharskyl's question quoted above are pretty close. It would be nice to know just how close.

How is it a clear signal?

I see my mistake now. That first email doesn't actually name his father, unlike the second one. Regardless, there's more evidence that Hunter Biden worked closely with his father on various business deals. I just read an article from the Epoch Times that confirms this:

**
In a statement to media outlets in October 2020, Bobulinski said that “Big Guy” was a reference to then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

“Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing,” Bobulinski wrote at the time.

“The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China,” Bobulinski further alleged.

Both the president and his son have denied any wrongdoing and the elder Biden said during his final debate against then President Donald Trump that “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”

Bobulinski insists this is false.
**

Source:
Musk Says Key Bits of ‘Twitter Files’ Were Compromised as He Fires Ex-FBI Twitter Lawyer Involved in ‘Vetting’ the Data | theepochtimes.com

The vagueness of the statement is not evidence that the influence is his father.

That sentence doesn't work gramatically.

It works just fine.

You're right. I believe I couldn't make sense of it because I'd missed the fact that the first email doesn't actually mention Hunter's father, unlike the second.

 

[Scott]

I am really interested in your explanation as to how viruses can not exist and at the same time the Covid virus can have been in humans for years before 2019.

It seems you haven't understood me. My belief, as well as that of the group of doctors and other professionals that I've pointed out previously, is that a Covid virus has never existed.

That is correct. The virus is SARS-COV2.....the illness it sometimes causes is COVID.

I'm aware that that is the alleged virus' official title, I was just using Richard Saunders' vernacular term for it. I don't believe any contagious viruses exist. A group of doctors and other professionals came up with a statement that they believe should be able to settle the virus debate. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'm aware that that is the alleged virus' official title, I was just using Richard Saunders' vernacular term for it. I don't believe any contagious viruses exist. A group of doctors and other professionals came up with a statement that they believe should be able to settle the virus debate. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

Sloppy....and Insane.

 

[Lightbringer]

Sloppy....and Insane.

Yes, you are.

 

[Scott]

Jim Baker, the liar and political assassin who had a high position in the FBI and used it to go after Trump and Republicans somehow worked at Twitter as head of deciding which posts were disinformation after the FBI. Go figure that someone like him would be hired in a key position at Twitter, eh? Musk can't know everything and he didn't know this until it came to light that HE, Jiom Baker was vetting the information given to Matt Tabbi who Musk asked to get to the bottom of the scam and report his findings to the people. Matt is a liberal and one who is known to be fair in his reporting and because he reports the truth, the liberals now despise him. But, get this.....Jim Baker, the Trump and conservative hater, was screening the info that Matt Tabbi was getting. In other words, Baker was deciding what the public would see and Musk believes he deleted many files and fired his a$$.

This thread though is about the new "Ministry of Truth" called CISA and I would not have been aware of CISA until this thread by Phoenyx but I have since done lots of checking as we cannot just believe posts or news anymore without verifying. Nearly all of the people on the CISA commission are far-left liberals. One of those is a guy named Bobby Chesney and he and two others have a blog site called Lawfare. How this background is needed in order to combat disinformation is unknown. He used to be on Twitter but can't stand that Musk now allows free speech and is moving to Mastodon where they cancel people for offending anyone. This just shows what a snowflake this guy is.

Guess who is one of their bloggers from time to time? You got it. None other than Jim Baker.

The members of that commission all know each other and are no friends of free speech unless it is from the left. You should also see the number of people they are looking to hire. It is mind-boggling. We will be a police state in 10 years or less. The IRS with 80,000 new people and this new CISA group planning to add hundreds of thousands on the guise of "foreign" interference when they are seeking out Americans.

I think you know that I like some left wing things, for instance Bernie Sanders. But I generally agree with what you're saying here.

 

[Scott]

You also presented articles saying that viruses don't exist and then presented articles claiming that the Covid virus has existed in humans for years. Your ability to decide what is reality and what isn't seems to be challenged. What you think is evidence often seems to be fever dreams.

This may be true- you need to understand that when I cite an article, I tend to cite it for very particular information, which I point out, frequently outright quoting said information. The fact that I cited an article does -not- mean that I agree with everything it says by default.

If you cite an article and don't indicate what you believe in it and what you don't believe then you are not making valid arguments.

I always say why I cite an article, and from that, one can understand what I definitely believe in it. As to the rest, if in doubt, ask.

 

[Scott]

Making vague statements like that doesn't do you any favours. In order to respond to your allegation, I think it's best to first define the terms involved. The American Heritage dictionary has multiple definitions of the term opinion. I think the first one in Wordnik.com's list of them applies here:

**
noun A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: synonym: view.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/opinion

I believe that anyone without sufficient information regarding a given subject wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact on said subject. The key is having sufficient information.

A child may not be able to tell the difference.

Prove to me that anyone would be able to tell the difference between something that is true and something that isn't without sufficient information and you'd have a case.

 

[Scott]

You don't need to attack a country in order to provoke it. The U.S.'s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq make this abundantly clear. To a lot of people, it's abundantly clear that Russia was in fact provoked into starting its military operation in Ukraine.

Both of those wars were actually predicated on attacks on other countries.
In the case of Afghanistan, the US was attacked on 9/11. Afghanistan then harbored the group that attacked the US and refused to turn them over.

Many U.S. citizens were certainly killed on 9/11. However, the FBI has admitted that they had no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

In the case of Iraq, Iraq attacked Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein did, yes, but only after consulting with US Ambassador April Glaspie, who told him that the U.S. 'had no opinion' on Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait. rense.com has a good article on the subject that suggests that Saddam was suckered into attacking Kuwait by the U.S.:

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Even so, Bush 41 didn't go so far as to occupy Iraq for several years. His son would, though.

Ukraine didn't harbor fugitives that had attacked another country.

That's debateable. It hinges on whether the Donbass republics were countries or not. Regardless, these self proclaimed republics certainly had a lot of people in them, and Ukraine certainly ended up killing a lot of them. When counting both the civilians killed as well as those fighting to remain independent of Ukraine, the official death toll was around 10,000 souls:

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War # Total Deaths | Wikipedia

Russia was certainly paying attention. Up until February 21st, they didn't recognize the Donbass republics, but on that day, that changed. They not only recognized them, but promised to protect them from aggression and 2-3 days later, Putin did just that, launching his military operation in Ukraine.

 

[Scott]

It seems you haven't understood me. My belief, as well as that of the group of doctors and other professionals that I've pointed out previously, is that a Covid virus has never existed.

You have only pointed to one nut that thinks viruses don't exist.

Yet another ad hominem attack -.- I'll let it go this time around, but would appreciate it if you'd stop doing that.

All your other links have been to people that DO believe viruses exist.

Pretty sure I've linked to the group of doctors and other professionals in a previous post to you. In any case, their names are listed at the bottom of the following statement:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

Claiming viruses don't exist is an extraordinary claim since for over 100 years general science has shown they exist.

I disagree, but I -do- agree that the majority of people now believe that.

People who make extraordinary claims are required to provide support for that claim. If the virus doesn't exist then why have several different labs been able to sequence the genetic code of viruses?

I think you'd be surprised if you found out how scientists arrive at these alleged viral genetic sequences. The best layperson explanation that I've seen is from journalist Iain Davis, who took a deep dive into the Cov 2 virus. I know you've seen the link to his article before, you even linked to it yourself in one of your posts. What I'd like to know is how much of it you read? I think his introduction speaks volumes as to the scale of what he uncovered:

**
COVID 19, and the subsequent governmental responses, appear to be part of an international conspiracy to commit fraud. It seems there is no evidence that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called COVID 19.

Sometimes you have to go with your gut. I am not an expert in genetics and, as ever, stand to be corrected. However my attention was drawn to some research published by the Spanish medical journal D-Salud-Discovery. Their advisory board of eminently qualified physicians and scientists lends further credibility to their research. Their claim is astounding.

The genetic primers and probes used in RT-PCR tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 do not target anything specific. I followed the search techniques outlined in this English translation of their report and can corroborate the accuracy of their claims about the nucleotide sequences listed in the World Health Organisations protocols. You can do the same.

D-Salud-Discovery state there are no tests capable of identifying SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, all claims about the alleged impact of COVID 19 on population health are groundless.

The entire official COVID 19 narrative is a deception. Ostensibly, there is no scientific foundation for any part of it.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

If viruses don't exist then why do we have pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes?

Prove to me that any picture of any alleged virus is actually a virus, and you'd have a case.

Explain what this is a picture of since you think it isn't a virus.

https://www.thekashmirmonitor.net/covid19-first-electron-microscope-image-of-virus-released/

The fact that I'm not sure what the pictured microbes are doesn't mean that it must therefore be a virus.

 

[Scott]

Prove that viruses don't exist.

You are the one who claimed that "actual science" shows that your view is correct. Thus, it is up to you to prove your case, not me.

Explain what this is in the photo since you think it isn't a virus.

https://analyticalscience.wiley.com/do/10.1002/micro.2707/full/

Again, just because I don't know what the photo depicts doesn't mean that it must therefore be a virus. You are the one claiming that contagious viruses are real. It's up to you to prove your case.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Again, just because I don't know what the photo depicts doesn't mean that it must therefore be a virus. You are the one claiming that contagious viruses are real. It's up to you to prove your case.

Are we now to have an exhaustive examination on the question of if the Sun arises in the East?

This civilization is in collapse, kindly attempt to focus!

tyvm

 

[Lightbringer]

Are we now to have an exhaustive examination on the question of if the Sun arises in the East?

This civilization is in collapse, kindly attempt to focus!

tyvm

Stop it liar. Just stop.

 

[AProudLefty]

It takes a special kind of person to believe viruses don't exist.

 

[Scott]

As I explained in a previous post to you, I don't believe everything in articles I link to. I do admit that until the last post, I hadn't made that clear in the past. I hope it's clear to you now that I don't believe any contagious biological viruses exist, and that what is labelled as contagious viruses are in fact other microbes, perhaps exclusively exosomes.

Perhaps you can explain why the human body doesn't see exosomes as a threat and target and attack them but does target and attack viruses.

You have yet to show any strong evidence that viruses exist at all, let alone that they are attacked by the human body.

More insults to my sources, really -.-? We'll see how many are in in this post.

Your sources deserve to be insulted since they make extraordinary claims without evidence.

If you think they're making extraordinary claims without evidence, feel free to say so and provide evidence for your claim. Insulting them does nothing to progress the discussion.

I cited this article mainly because it picks apart the evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists. You'll note that he also expresses skepticism that the original cov viruses is real as well:
"Unfortunately it isn’t clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome is either."

How is anyone supposed to know which claims he makes are the ones we should think you believe in vs the ones you don't believe in since you have never specified any?

I focus on the claims I believe in. If you're not sure if I believe a particular claim, feel free to ask.

Here you're simply mistaken. Read the article carefully. Jon Rappoport has made it repeatedly clear that he doesn't believe in the Cov 2 virus, or any other virus for that matter.

So when he says this, he is lying? The coronavirus could have existed for a long time in humans—causing no damage or harm whatsoever. Or this The virus could have ALREADY been present in MANY different places. It didn’t spread. It was THERE. How can he claim something that doesn't exist is THERE?
I think you need to reread what he wrote. He is claiming the coronavirus has existed in humans long before 2019 and recently mutated to become dangerous.

Upon reflection, I think the issue here is that he -used- to believe the virus existed, but has since changed his mind. The article you quote is from February 2020. Over a year later, he wrote the following article:

The virus that doesn’t exist: lies and consequences by Jon Rappoport | Light on Light Publishing

I linked to the article you cited because it lists a lot of other possible causes for the illnesses that people were getting in Wuhan.

At least at the time of publishing her book, Tetyana did indeed claim to believe in viruses, a claim which I no longer believe myself as you know. Her book was focused on the innefectualness and even harm done by vaccines, which is why I brought her book up.

How is anyone supposed to know which claims she makes are the ones we should think you believe in vs the ones you don't believe in since you have never specified any?

I generally specify the claims I believe in, but again, if in doubt, you (or anyone else) can always ask.

No, I don't believe they are. Like the group of doctors I've mentioned in the past, I believe they're simply other microorganisms that have been falsely labelled as contagious viruses.

That's some funny stuff. Viruses are microorganisms. You don't believe viruses exist. What science calls viruses are really microorganisms but they shouldn't be named viruses. In other words your only argument is with calling the microorganisms viruses instead of poopythings.

If you can provide compelling evidence that the microorganisms you've provided pictures of are contagious viruses, by all means do so. Otherwise, the only thing we'll be able to agree on is that they're microorganisms.

 

[Scott]

So we agree that Mueller looked for evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in a crime and couldn't find enough to charge Trump with a crime. As to what the Mueller report -did- conclude, I don't agree with at least some of it, starting with part of its opening:

**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**

I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.

Mueller said this...A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. When he later says there was not enough evidence to charge a crime that in no way can be construed to mean there was no evidence since Mueller said that such a statement would be false.

This started with you posting something about what was claimed to be in the Mueller report and now instead of admitting that your claim is false you just want to argue that you don't agree with what is in the Mueller report.

My claim? I made it clear that the claim was from a BBC article.

As to believing what Mueller found and reported on, Mueller used the FBI and did extensive investigation to reach his conclusions.

I'm not as trusting of the FBI as you are.

You on the other hand have done no research

A false allegation, but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise.

As to the Seth Rich claim, Seth Rich's family sued Fox News about those claims being broadcast on Fox and Fox paid a settlement rather than fighting them. The claims that Seth Rich leaked the files is false.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/seth-rich-family-settles-lawsuit-233043072.html

The fact that Seth Rich's family sue Fox News and that Fox paid a settlement rather than fighting them does not mean that the claims therefore had to be false.

 

[Scott]

The article that the New York Post article links to in the quote above suggests that Biden was actually guilty of firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Quoting from the linked article:

**
Hunter Biden became a board member of Burisma Holdings in 2014, soon after President Barack Obama placed his father in charge of managing U.S. relations with Ukraine.

The younger Biden’s company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was paid up to $166,000 a month, The Hill has reported — even though Hunter Biden had no experience in the fuel industry and no prior business dealings in the Ukraine.

“Not one single outlet has given any credibility to [Trump’s] assertion” that Biden intervened for his son’s benefit, he said Friday. “Not one single one.”

But in 2018, Biden himself talked about pushing the Ukraine to remove Shokin in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations — without disclosing his son’s ties to the Ukrainian company.

In March 2016, Biden recalled, he told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the US government would cancel $1 billion of loan guarantees unless Shokin, who was facing his own charges of corruption, was removed from office.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’” Biden said in the videotaped speech. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired,” Biden concluded. Shokin was formally ousted from his post by the Ukrainian Parliament that same month.

Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.
**

Source:
Biden accuses Trump of an ‘overwhelming abuse of power’ following Ukraine allegations | New York Post

Simply citing the same disputed claims doesn't suddenly make them true.

A lot of claims are made above. Is the only one you disagree with the last one, aka the "Within weeks" one?

Which claims do you think are true?

At present, all of the claims made in the quote above by the New York Post.

It would seem you're confusing investigations. The Reuters article is talking about an investigation that was still ongoing in 2019. From their article:

**
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.
**

Source:
Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined | Reuters


All NABU is saying is that they are -not- investigating anything related to Hunter Biden's time in Burisma. They make no claim that Burisma wasn't previously under investigation during Hunter Biden's time there.

Time is a funny thing. 2012 is not 2016.

I suspect you didn't understand the argument I made above, but it appears you finally got it in the next bit, so no need to look up...

There was no investigation in 2019.

Have you noticed that the present tense is used when talking about the Burisma investigation in your 2019 Reuters article? It's right there in the very first sentence. I'll even bold the present tense verb for you:
**
A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said.
**

Source:
Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined | Reuters

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Please present -your- proof that I ever made such a claim.

Since you don't make that claim then you have no evidence to support that Biden talked business at the meeting. Clearly you are just making allegations that are not supported by any facts.

I see my mistake now. That first email doesn't actually name his father, unlike the second one. Regardless, there's more evidence that Hunter Biden worked closely with his father on various business deals. I just read an article from the Epoch Times that confirms this:

**
In a statement to media outlets in October 2020, Bobulinski said that “Big Guy” was a reference to then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

“Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing,” Bobulinski wrote at the time.

“The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China,” Bobulinski further alleged.

Both the president and his son have denied any wrongdoing and the elder Biden said during his final debate against then President Donald Trump that “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”

Bobulinski insists this is false.
**

Source:
Musk Says Key Bits of ‘Twitter Files’ Were Compromised as He Fires Ex-FBI Twitter Lawyer Involved in ‘Vetting’ the Data | theepochtimes.com

You recognized one mistake and then made an even bigger one. Please provide your evidence that Joe Biden is the only person in the world has ever been referred to as "the big guy."
Bobulinksi alleged but did not provide any evidence to back up his claim. Once again you prove you don't know the difference between a fact an opinion.

You're right. I believe I couldn't make sense of it because I'd missed the fact that the first email doesn't actually mention Hunter's father, unlike the second.

You missed a fact? Perhaps you missed it because you are not discerning as to what facts are.