When will the Biden impeachment start?

[Cunt]

He doesn't need impeaching. Besides, the Dems don't have anyone else to run. The VP is terribly unlikeable. Which is weird, because she is a woman of colour, just like Biden said he was giving everyone.

Do those democrat voters hate diversity or something? Sheesh!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Thoroughly debunked two years ago, yet the faithful continue to repeat the same disinformation they got from some meme or doofus podcast.

'Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son'

Despite a recently concluded investigation by Senate Republicans that found no wrongdoing by the Bidens, claims to the contrary have continued to circulate on social media.

"VP Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars from Ukraine to save his son's job," reads a meme posted to Facebook by Secure America Now. The meme has been shared more than 9,000 times since Oct. 18 [2020].

...

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

As European and American diplomats pressed Ukraine to clean up its corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, which he took over in February 2015.

Mike Carpenter, who served as a foreign policy adviser to the then-vice president, told USA TODAY that Shokin "never went after any corrupt individuals at all" and "never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."

Charlie Kupchan, who was a special assistant to President Barack Obama and a senior director for European Affairs on the National Security Council, said anti-corruption efforts were "a big part of our diplomacy" with Ukraine, since "it was that corruption that allowed Russia to manipulate the country politically and economically."

As a result, Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid as "a stick to move Ukraine forward," Kupchan said. "He was acting alongside our European allies. Everybody was of a single mind that this prosecutor was not the right guy for the job."

Daria Kaleniuk, the co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kyiv, Ukraine, credited Biden, the International Monetary Fund — which threatened to delay $40 billion in aid for similar reasons — and others with the prosecutor's removal.

...

Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin to be removed, per the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency that has worked closely with the FBI.

In 2014, Shokin had investigated Burisma for money laundering and tax irregularities, per USA TODAY.

The probe focused on 2010-12, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Hunter Biden — who joined the board in 2014 and served on it until early 2019 — was not the subject of the investigation.

The case was settled in court in 2017.

The recent report by Senate Republicans also contained no evidence that Joe Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor as a way to protect his son, according to the Associated Press.

Completely untrustworthy of course since it is the work of a fact checker and sources information from mainstream media. Memes are far more believable.

[Cunt]

Let's see...what did that say about a 'quid pro quo'...

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016.

Oh, nothing. Never mind.

It's only bad if Trump calls to investigate that quid pro quo. THEN it's a quid pro quo.

Tell me, Lemmy, have you managed to flesh out your definition of 'woman' yet? Or are you still defeated by basic follow up questions? lol

[L'Emmerdeur]

Let's see...what did that say about a 'quid pro quo'...

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016.

Oh, nothing. Never mind.

It's only bad if Trump calls to investigate that quid pro quo. THEN it's a quid pro quo.

Tell me, Lemmy, have you managed to flesh out your definition of 'woman' yet? Or are you still defeated by basic follow up questions? lol

Rather pathetic cherry-picking there, as the sentence after the one you quoted makes evident. Biden was acting in pursuance of the policy of the United States government as well as the policy of its allies, the European Union. Shokin was not doing his job and the US and Europe saw that Shokin's failure was encouraging Russia to freely meddle in Ukraine. Shokin was not investigating Burisma when he was kicked out, so his presence in office was no threat to Hunter Biden trading on his relationship to the vice president. Vice President Biden had no personal reason to push for Shokin to be fired. You would have known all of this two years ago if you'd been paying attention.

I'm not disputing that both Biden as vice president and Trump as president were bargaining with Ukraine. Two examples of quid pro quo. The difference is in what ends were being pursued.

Trump using the power of the US government to try to force Ukraine to do his personal bidding. There was no US governmental interest that he was pursuing, it was for his personal political benefit. In case you don't recognize it, that is what corruption looks like.

Trump didn't even care if Ukraine actually did an investigation of Biden. Trump's ambassador to the EU testified under oath that he was told that all was needed was for Ukraine to say that they were going to investigate Biden. That would have been sufficient to advance Trump's personal political interest. If you can't see the difference between that and Biden pursuing official US policy, it's because you've become a genuine Trumpist, congratulations.

As for your lame nagging--you may find my definition unsatisfactory but I think I can live with that. I answered the basic follow up questions, and you and dear Bob found those answers unsatisfactory as well. Not losing any sleep over it, but thanks for your concern.

[Cunt]

Let's see...what did that say about a 'quid pro quo'...

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016.

Oh, nothing. Never mind.

It's only bad if Trump calls to investigate that quid pro quo. THEN it's a quid pro quo.

Tell me, Lemmy, have you managed to flesh out your definition of 'woman' yet? Or are you still defeated by basic follow up questions? lol

s two years ago if you'd been paying attention.

I'm not disputing that both Biden as vice president and Trump as president were bargaining with Ukraine. Two examples of quid pro quo. The difference was in what ends were being pursued.

Thanks for admitting it.

Lot of extra words in there justifying...something, but I skipped those. It's hard to read someone who can't be coherent in the most basic terms.

As for your lame nagging--you may find my definition unsatisfactory but I think I can live with that. I answered the basic follow up questions, and you and dear Bob found those answers unsatisfactory as well. Not losing any sleep over it, but thanks for your concern.

Not nagging, just pointing out why I find your prose more poetic than factual.

You don't have to know what a 'woman' is, and you certainly don't have to say what you mean, or allow clarification of what you call a 'definition' lol

[Joe]

I did like the guy in the video saying that both checks were for loan repayment, "which they could well have been."

Just in: There's one thing every Trump fan should know. The proof of the bribe is the quid pro quo.

Depending on which side of the aisle the quid pro quo comes from.

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

No need to link, I know the fact checkers are sure it was the good kind of quid pro quo, not the Trump kind.

Er, whatever.

So where was the quid pro quo with Joe? What did CEFC get for their dough?

[Cunt]

Oh, he's surely above reproach. Just ask the mainstream news!

And he can't be impeached for showering with his (probably too old) daughter. That doesn't have anything to do with his presidenting.

https://t.me/OKeefeMediaGroup/655

Two years ago the FBI showed up at my
Door with a battering ram, looking into the matter of the President’s daughter’s diary.

[Joe]

[Tero]

Cunt is posting data from Telegram.

Russians own that.

[Cunt]

Cunt is posting data from Telegram.

Russians own that.

It's James O'Keefe. Russia may own the platform, but you post from 'owned' platforms all the time.

Is this just a comfortable way to ignore the salacious stuff found in the diary? His voters really aren't bothered by it.

[Cunt]

FINALLY some Russian Collusion!
https://t.me/GarrettZ/10746

https://media.marcopolousa.org/pdf/bidensar2.pdf

No impeaching his Dad though. They aren't connected.

[rasetsu]

FINALLY some Russian Collusion!
https://t.me/GarrettZ/10746

https://media.marcopolousa.org/pdf/bidensar2.pdf

No impeaching his Dad though. They aren't connected.

I'm betting you don't know what any of that means.

[Tero]

Move along folks! Nothing to see here! Well, Cunt's rabbit holes.

[macdoc]

[Cunt]

Move along folks! Nothing to see here! Well, Cunt's rabbit holes.

Isn't Hunter suing Mr. Z because of his laptop?

And good analogy, if you understand a little bunny science. Rabbits don't live in holes, they live in warrens. Complex systems of tunnels and holes.