Biden had no conflict of interest

[theLiquidGuy]

Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

 

[trouble13]

Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

By asking that question, you just answered your own question.

Tell us about Pizzagate, Ted.

 

[theLiquidGuy]

You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The more important question is: why did Trump want biden investigated in the first place? Especially since you cannot say that there was a conflict.

Actually i dont mind if Biden gets investigated. But its pretty obvious to me that Trump wanted to use this as a way to discredit Biden. Since Trump was using the office to benefit himself in the next electio, he abused his power and should be held accountable.

 

[uptower]

You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There isn't even probable cause but go ahead. The thing is as long as the words Biden and Burisma and Ukraine are constantly uttered in the same breath, believers gonna follow. But there's nothing there compared to what we have Trump saying on record.

 

[marke]

Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

Shokin has confiscated the property belonging to the oligarch who owned Burisma, sparking Americans on Burisma's board to urge VP Biden to act on Burisma's behalf. Shokin was fired 3 weeks later.

 

[Felis Leo]

Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

It has little to do with anything that Joe Biden did or did not do, really. It is basically Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who is acting like an albatross around Joe Biden's neck. Hunter Biden, who by all accounts is a disgusting excuse of a human being, got a job with a corrupt Ukrainian petrochemical firm with zero experience because he was Vice President Joe Biden's son. That is it.

As for Biden's pressuring a foreign government to fire a government minister on pain of withholding loan guarantees, it serves to wipe aside the utterly facile narrative pushed by Democrats that quid pro quos are wrong in foreign policy. Clearly they are not automatically wrong.

 

[theLiquidGuy]

Shokin has confiscated the property belonging to the oligarch who owned Burisma, sparking Americans on Burisma's board to urge VP Biden to act on Burisma's behalf. Shokin was fired 3 weeks later.

I have never heard that before. Do you have a time line and/or link ?

 

[code1211]

Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

The issue is that Biden was executing the orders from Obama to withhold promised funds until the Ukrainians did what Obama was demanding be done. A bribe, admitted to as a part of a Quid Pro Quo.

Does any part of this sound familiar to you as things described in the impeachment hearings? Anything?

As Biden said following the description of the pay off which was intended to incentivize the firing, "Well, son of a b---h. He got fired." Then the guy got fired.

If there is a complete investigation into this, then everything you say should be proven. Something will certainly be proven. I wonder what it will turn out to be. What could it possibly be?

Do you think Biden was lying, again, about this in addition to so many other lies he's told? This could turn out to be, as Biden said in the past, a Big F-ing Deal.

Seems like he loves to use profanity, but hates it when Trump uses profanity. Seems odd.

 

[roughdraft274]

You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Because investigations aren't supposed to be politically biased horse**** with no foundation in reality. Even Republicans were happy to see that prosecutor go. And they never even mentioned the possibility of corruption or abuse til Biden was expected to run against trump. So it's bull**** topped with horse**** for incredibly gullible people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Fletch]

The issue is that Biden was executing the orders from Obama to withhold promised funds until the Ukrainians did what Obama was demanding be done.

Do we actually know that this was Obamas position? Or was Biden winging it?

 

[ElChupacabra]

You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Awesome! Tomorrow I'll start my investigation to determine if you're really an undercover Martian because that's what my gut tells me.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It has little to do with anything that Joe Biden did or did not do, really. It is basically Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who is acting like an albatross around Joe Biden's neck. Hunter Biden, who by all accounts is a disgusting excuse of a human being, got a job with a corrupt Ukrainian petrochemical firm with zero experience because he was Vice President Joe Biden's son. That is it.

As for Biden's pressuring a foreign government to fire a government minister on pain of withholding loan guarantees, it serves to wipe aside the utterly facile narrative pushed by Democrats that quid pro quos are wrong in foreign policy. Clearly they are not automatically wrong.

Correct, QPQ's are not automatically wrong, so long as they serve the interest of the country instead of personal interest of an elected or appointed official. That's where the line was crossed.

 

[code1211]

The more important question is: why did Trump want biden investigated in the first place? Especially since you cannot say that there was a conflict.

Actually i dont mind if Biden gets investigated. But its pretty obvious to me that Trump wanted to use this as a way to discredit Biden. Since Trump was using the office to benefit himself in the next electio, he abused his power and should be held accountable.

According to Trump, he wanted Biden investigated because

[FONT=&quot]"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]you ·can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

At the top of page three of the [/FONT]transcript, Trump uses the phrase, "I would like you to do us a favor". Biden's name occurs after a reference to his "Biden's son", however, that doesn't happen until the end of the first paragraph on page 4.

Immediately after the request for the favor, Trump asks about Crowdstrike and a server that vanished mysteriously.

Then, in that same paragraph, he talks about Barr and then bemoans the job done by Mueller in the US and mentions some corrupt actors in Ukraine.

In a very lengthy comment, Zelensky then discusses cooperation between the two countries, replacing the ambassador to the US, Zelensky introduces the idea of working with Giuliani and hoping he will come to Ukraine, how much he values the friendship with Trump and the strategic partnership with the US and that all investigations will be conducted openly and honestly.

Trump responds that his ambassador to Ukraine was also bad and that Giuliani is great. He also sympathizes with Zelensky's and Z's opinion that he was surrounded by bad people.

After ALL of that, Trump FINALLY came to the topic of Biden's son and noted "[FONT=&quot]that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that".

In his next statement, Zelensky says:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The issue of the investigation of the case is �ctually the issui of �aking sure to res�o�e the honesty so we will take care of.that and wi11·wo:tk on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide [/FONT][FONT=&quot]·[/FONT][FONT=&quot]to μs, it would_ be very helpful[/FONT][FONT=&quot]·[/FONT][FONT=&quot]for the investigation t·o make· sur. e that we administer justice i':r1 our country with regc:ird: to the Ambassador[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovicli. It was great that you were the first one[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]who told me that she was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a [/FONT][FONT=*Courier New-5360-Identity-H]bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%. Her attitude to.wards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his· side. She would not accept me as a new president well enough."[/FONT]

[FONT=*Courier New-5360-Identity-H]The actual text of the transcript is very benign in terms of any kind of a bribe or a quid pro quo or whatever the [/FONT]Democrat-Socialist talking point focus groups are trying to drum up this week.







https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2019/09/25/Unclassified092019.pdf

 

[theLiquidGuy]

It has little to do with anything that Joe Biden did or did not do, really. It is basically Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who is acting like an albatross around Joe Biden's neck. Hunter Biden, who by all accounts is a disgusting excuse of a human being, got a job with a corrupt Ukrainian petrochemical firm with zero experience because he was Vice President Joe Biden's son. That is it.

You haven’t mentioned any specific allegation that justifies Trump pushing to have his political rival investigated.

As for Biden's pressuring a foreign government to fire a government minister on pain of withholding loan guarantees, it serves to wipe aside the utterly facile narrative pushed by Democrats that quid pro quos are wrong in foreign policy. Clearly they are not automatically wrong.

No offense, but you have been fooled by the republican propaganda machine. “No quid pro quo” is the battle cry that Republicans had been using in an attempt to cripple the case for impeachment. But qpq has always been a republican distraction and irrelevant to the democrat’s case. The only thing that is necessary for impeachment is to show abuse of power. Quid pro quo is and was unnecessary.

On June 13, 2019 the FEC chair released the statement "[...]It is illegal to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election[...]"


Since the beginning “quid pro quo is necessary” has been the republican narrative. Dems have fallen into the trap of trying to prove it existed. Luckily for them, dems have managed to pull that off (albeit unnecessarily).

 

[code1211]

There isn't even probable cause but go ahead. The thing is as long as the words Biden and Burisma and Ukraine are constantly uttered in the same breath, believers gonna follow. But there's nothing there compared to what we have Trump saying on record.

Biden actually described the bribe, named Obama as the guy who set it up, admitted, bragged about, executing the order from Obama and that the Ukranians complied.

Then, off course, there is the record of the payment, the record of the firing of the prosecutor and the well known corruption in Ukraine.

What did Trump say that matches this level of evidence? What evidence exists that any bribe was given by Trump, even offered by Trump, or that any action by Ukraine occurred in response?

Your imagination seems to be running far ahead of your facts.

 

[trouble13]

Because investigations aren't supposed to be politically biased horse**** with no foundation in reality. Even Republicans were happy to see that prosecutor go. And they never even mentioned the possibility of corruption or abuse til Biden was expected to run against trump. So it's bull**** topped with horse**** for incredibly gullible people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Unless the name is Trump, then no evidence of a crime is needed just snnaccusation is required. Fishing expeditions are now the new norm regardless of who its inconvenient for.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

I have never heard that before. Do you have a time line and/or link ?

Burisma was a corrupt and corrupting entity in Ukraine. The issues revolving around them being investigated started up in about 2012. Biden Jr. was hired in about 2014.

The prosecutor was fired, according to Biden, upon request relayed from Obama.

Burisma Timeline Just Leads To More Questions About Hunter Biden

 

[trouble13]

Awesome! Tomorrow I'll start my investigation to determine if you're really an undercover Martian because that's what my gut tells me.

Sure why not, its no more substantive than whats been used to investigate Trump for the past 4yrs.
The fact that it was cheered on by the same people who are crying foul about that standard being applied to a democrat now does not concern me in the least bit.
The moral of the story is Don't set standards for others that you can't live up too yourself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

Because investigations aren't supposed to be politically biased horse**** with no foundation in reality. Even Republicans were happy to see that prosecutor go. And they never even mentioned the possibility of corruption or abuse til Biden was expected to run against trump. So it's bull**** topped with horse**** for incredibly gullible people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Based on the highlighted comment, may we assume, then, that you are opposed to the whole witch hunt thingy ongoing since 2016 against Trump and his campaign?

 

[code1211]

Do we actually know that this was Obamas position? Or was Biden winging it?

We only know that Biden said he was executing Obama's directions.

Obama has neither confirmed nor denied that allegation.

 

[code1211]

Awesome! Tomorrow I'll start my investigation to determine if you're really an undercover Martian because that's what my gut tells me.

Bob Mueller? Is that you?

 

[code1211]

Correct, QPQ's are not automatically wrong, so long as they serve the interest of the country instead of personal interest of an elected or appointed official. That's where the line was crossed.

Wait, wut?

Are you saying that Trump's action is definitely a criminal thing and that Biden's action is definitely not a criminal thing?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Sure why not, its no more substantive than whats been used to investigate Trump for the past 4yrs.
The fact that it was cheered on by the same people who are crying foul about that standard being applied to a democrat now does not concern me in the least bit.
The moral of the story is Don't set standards for others that you can't live up too yourself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The difference is there was a complaint issued and the IG thought it carried enough weight for it to be investigated. That isn't just "I think that guy did something" with no basis in reality. If there's information supporting the possibility of malfeasance on the part of the Bidens then I have no issue with them (and anyone else) being investigated. What doesn't make sense is launching investigations based on conspiracy theories with no substance.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wait, wut?

Are you saying that Trump's action is definitely a criminal thing and that Biden's action is definitely not a criminal thing?

for Trump, I believe it was criminal

for Biden, I honestly don't know and part of me would like to see more investigation on that because enough info isn't out yet.

However, I don't think what may have happened with the Bidens is an excuse for Trump to do what he did. I don't believe that we should excuse bad behavior because someone else did something wrong on general principle.