sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Trump was impeached for trying to blackmail the President of Ukraine into digging up dirt on Joe Biden, not for "asking where the money was going."

---

He's perfectly entitled to ask their president about past conduct of US policy and improperties associated with it, especially given that billlions in US aid were sent to that country.

---

Again, you're leaving out the part where he was trying to hold up aid that had already been approved by Congress unless Zelensky agreed to help him with investigating Biden (a.k.a. his chief political opponent).

---

It was reported that Trump had allegedly blocked payment but there was no proof. No quid pro quo. Zelenskyy also denied that he was pressured by Trump. And although Trump was impeached twice, he was also acquitted by the Senate twice.

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

But it was okay when Biden threatened to withhold a billion in aid if the prosecutor investigating a company his son was collecting big checks from wasn't fired. Remember how he bragged about it? Wild.

---

Yes, conditioning aid for concessions on US government policy priorities, not for personal political advantage. See the difference?

---

I think it's quite obvious that not having his own son investigated was both politically and financially beneficial to Biden.

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

But it was okay when Biden threatened to withhold a billion in aid if the prosecutor investigating a company his son was collecting big checks from wasn't fired. Remember how he bragged about it? Wild.

---

Yes, conditioning aid for concessions on US government policy priorities, not for personal political advantage. See the difference?

---

I think it's quite obvious that not having his own son investigated was both politically and financially beneficial to Biden.

---

Burisma was being investigated for things that would have happened prior to Hunter Biden ever joining the company.

And the whole complaint with the prosecutor was that he WASN'T actually prosecuting corruption enough within the country! This whole conspiracy theory makes no sense.

Good grief, that's the official narrative. Are we to simply take everything from the Bidens and their MSM allies at face value without any verification?

Here is a deep dive into the whole thing with extensive telephone recordings of Biden with Poroshenko, interviews with Shokin and many other Ukranians and others familiar with the issue.

- Hunter Biden was accused of money laundering from within Ukraine, not Trump or the Republicans.
- Shokin was investigating Burisma, a thoroughly corrupt company, and moved to freeze its assets.
- Soon after, Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin and made the US $1billion contingent on the firing.
- Poroshenko flat out told Biden that Shokin did nothing wrong but forced him to resign anyway. It's in a recording made by Poroshenko's office and authenticated.
- Poroshenko suggested to Biden that Shokin be replaced with one of his political operatives with no legal experience. Biden said he'd think about it and later that guy was appointed.
- Much later, Shokin was exonerated by the Ukranian appeals court saying that he was wrongfully accused.
- Poroshenko funneled Biden's billion dollars through his network of companies greatly enriching himself in the process.
- Zelenskyy accused Poroshenko of treason for this but walked it back because it was too damaging to Biden ahead of the US election.
- A Ukranian member of parliament is on record claiming that a US official associated with Democratic Party pressured the Ukranians to suppress the audio recordings of Biden and Poroshenko.
- There have been Ukranian investigations into Poroshenko's corruptionin relation to his US ties. References to the Bidens have been mysteriously scrubbed.
- Burisma tried to bribe the General Prosecutor's office (one of the successors to Shokin) with $50 million to make the Burisma investigation go away. $6 million has been recovered.

None of this is speculation. And there is so much more.

The full series here: there’s a REASON for Biden’s pardon date for Hunter. https://t.co/RpWazNyCXQ

— Chanel Rion OAN (@ChanelRion) December 2, 2024

OAN is an explicitly right-wing outlet that has every reason to fudge facts in an attempt to hit a Democratic president. And you accuse me of just swallowing a narrative?

Oh, but your sources are legit. Russia, Russia, Russia. How soon we forget. At any rate, I'm not asking you to rely on OAN. What part of verified audio recordings and interviews with the actual participants do you not understand?

Zippergate said:

---

Oh, but your sources are legit. Russia, Russia, Russia. How soon we forget. At any rate, I'm not asking you to rely on OAN. What part of verified audio recordings and interviews with the actual participants do you not understand?

---

I went ahead and watched the first 15 minutes of your linked OAN video. Here's the thing: it's pure propaganda. The audio recordings they play don't actually prove what they claim they prove; they just surround the clips with other right-wing interlocutors (like Rudy Giuliani) providing their opinions and speculation, and play sinister music behind all the claims, to make you THINK the clip actually said that. And then there's the guy who got fired (Sholkin) claiming that he shouldn't have been fired and that it was all corrupt Joe Biden's fault. Of course he says that; it's not proof of anything. If the rest of the "reporting" is like this, I don't think I'll be convinced.

Perhaps you can point me to the specific clips that you think constitute the smoking guns here and we can discuss those? I'm not going to spend time refuting every claim in 80+ minutes of propaganda.

By the way, I haven't said anything about Russia here. I'm sure Russia is doing their own propaganda too, but my point has always been that no one has been able to prove that either Biden actually did anything illegal or corrupt w/r/t Ukraine. It's always just a lot of suggestions and innuendo.

Biden used the pretense that Shokin was corrupt to have him fired. If he wasn't corrupt, what does that tell you?

Shokin says he was exonerated by the Ukrainian appeals court.
Poroshenko explicitly said this to Biden in the call. The point he makes is crystal clear: I'm sacking Shokin as a favor to you, Joe Biden, to get the billion dollars.

1 min clip starting here.

I disagree. Shokin even gave us a date. It's a matter of public record. But regardless, you conveniently ignored the the quote from Poroshenko which couldn't possibly be more clear. I can appreciate your ultra-skepticism, but I wonder why you take Biden's claims at face value when we know that Joe is a serial liar who has lied repeatedly about his knowledge of and involvement in Hunter's business affairs. I wonder if you were equally skeptical about the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax and endless lawfare against Trump.

Of course, Kleptocrats like Poroshenko are going to try to explain their way out of trouble, but what did he tell Biden at the time?

"Despite of the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges against him, we don't have any specific information about fraud charges, I specially asked him to resign."

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Of course, Kleptocrats like Poroshenko are going to try to explain their way out of trouble, but what did he tell Biden at the time?

"Despite of the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges against him, we don't have any specific information about fraud charges, I specially asked him to resign."

---

Okay, so I'm supposed to believe Poroshenko this time but not the other time? And I'm supposed to believe Shokin all the time? Or maybe none of these guys are trustworthy and I'll go with the outside consensus opinion of the US, EU, IMF, etc., that Shokin was a lousy prosecutor who wasn't rooting out corruption and deserved to be fired.

Honestly, it doesn't even matter if Shokin was actually corrupt; what matters is if the US government collectively held the opinion that he was and that he needed to go, then Biden was simply acting out the wishes of said government. If it turns out later that they were wrong, that still doesn't prove that Biden was doing anything self-serving. It would just show that US intelligence made a mistake at the time (though again, I don't think that has been demonstrated at all).

---

Emperor Palpatine convinced his government that Alderaan needed to be destroyed, so it must have been okay. And, yes, the German government collectively held the opinion that Jews needed to be put in Concentration Camps and killed in gas chambers, so it must have been okay.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Of course, Kleptocrats like Poroshenko are going to try to explain their way out of trouble, but what did he tell Biden at the time?

"Despite of the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges against him, we don't have any specific information about fraud charges, I specially asked him to resign."

---

Okay, so I'm supposed to believe Poroshenko this time but not the other time? And I'm supposed to believe Shokin all the time? Or maybe none of these guys are trustworthy and I'll go with the outside consensus opinion of the US, EU, IMF, etc., that Shokin was a lousy prosecutor who wasn't rooting out corruption and deserved to be fired.

Honestly, it doesn't even matter if Shokin was actually corrupt; what matters is if the US government collectively held the opinion that he was and that he needed to go, then Biden was simply acting out the wishes of said government. If it turns out later that they were wrong, that still doesn't prove that Biden was doing anything self-serving. It would just show that US intelligence made a mistake at the time (though again, I don't think that has been demonstrated at all).

---

Emperor Palpatine convinced his government that Alderaan needed to be destroyed, so it must have been okay. And, yes, the German government collectively held the opinion that Jews needed to be put in Concentration Camps and killed in gas chambers, so it must have been okay.

---

Missing the point and deflecting. The argument here isn't whether or not the government's policy was okay. It's whether or not Biden was doing something corrupt outside of said policy. That was the Republican claim in their Congressional investigation. I say he was not.

(I also think the policy wasn't really bad in this case either, but reasonable people can disagree on that.)

---

What if Biden knowingly lies or withheld information in order to direct policy that would help his corrupt coke ***** banging son?

Okay, so I'm supposed to believe Poroshenko this time but not the other time? And I'm supposed to believe Shokin all the time? Or maybe none of these guys are trustworthy and I'll go with the outside consensus opinion of the US, EU, IMF, etc., that Shokin was a lousy prosecutor who wasn't rooting out corruption and deserved to be fired.


Honestly, it doesn't even matter if Shokin was actually corrupt; what matters is if the US government collectively held the opinion that he was and that he needed to go, then Biden was simply acting out the wishes of said government. If it turns out later that they were wrong, that still doesn't prove that Biden was doing anything self-serving. It would just show that US intelligence made a mistake at the time (though again, I don't think that has been demonstrated at all).

It's not "this time." It was AT THE TIME HE FIRED SHOKIN. The audio is clear: he made it clear to Biden that Shokin was doing nothing wrong, but he was being terminated to please Biden.

I find it curious that Biden and supposedly the "US government collectively" (what does this even mean? evidence?) were so concerned about corruption in Ukraine and isolated that concern to a singular individual who just happened to be investigating Biden's son. Can you find me any example where the US bullied a country into a firing like this? I'm sure Shokin's successor was much more effective in rooting out corruption. It's not like Poroshenko, Zelenskyy and countless others pocketed billions of US aid or anything.

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OAN is an explicitly right-wing outlet that has every reason to fudge facts in an attempt to hit a Democratic president. And you accuse me of just swallowing a narrative?

---

It's so amazing to me that certain types go all enraged at potential yarns on one side, yet when it's overt and massive on their side they are silent or dismissive.

---

You can see it when people get very passionate telling you about how the US government can lie to you, and how the US mass media can lie to you (which is true, sometimes!) . . . but then turn around and basically swallow a narrative from the Russian or Chinese government uncritically. That's not being a healthy skeptic, that's just choosing sides and sticking with them.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OAN is an explicitly right-wing outlet that has every reason to fudge facts in an attempt to hit a Democratic president. And you accuse me of just swallowing a narrative?

---

It's so amazing to me that certain types go all enraged at potential yarns on one side, yet when it's overt and massive on their side they are silent or dismissive.

---

You can see it when people get very passionate telling you about how the US government can lie to you, and how the US mass media can lie to you (which is true, sometimes!) . . . but then turn around and basically swallow a narrative from the Russian or Chinese government uncritically. That's not being a healthy skeptic, that's just choosing sides and sticking with them.

---

That alleged Russian/Chinese government narrative is a prime example of the US government and MSM lying to you.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OAN is an explicitly right-wing outlet that has every reason to fudge facts in an attempt to hit a Democratic president. And you accuse me of just swallowing a narrative?

---

It's so amazing to me that certain types go all enraged at potential yarns on one side, yet when it's overt and massive on their side they are silent or dismissive.

---

You can see it when people get very passionate telling you about how the US government can lie to you, and how the US mass media can lie to you (which is true, sometimes!) . . . but then turn around and basically swallow a narrative from the Russian or Chinese government uncritically. That's not being a healthy skeptic, that's just choosing sides and sticking with them.

---

That alleged Russian/Chinese government narrative is a prime example of the US government and MSM lying to you.

---

No, those governments also put out their own lines of propaganda and you should be aware of that.

---

An analysis that goes against the prevailing narrative will be branded as such. See the episode about Hunter's laptop, which the deep state/51 intell figures branded as Russian propaganda, and the MSM pushed that fake narrative in lockstep.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OAN is an explicitly right-wing outlet that has every reason to fudge facts in an attempt to hit a Democratic president. And you accuse me of just swallowing a narrative?

---

It's so amazing to me that certain types go all enraged at potential yarns on one side, yet when it's overt and massive on their side they are silent or dismissive.

---

You can see it when people get very passionate telling you about how the US government can lie to you, and how the US mass media can lie to you (which is true, sometimes!) . . . but then turn around and basically swallow a narrative from the Russian or Chinese government uncritically. That's not being a healthy skeptic, that's just choosing sides and sticking with them.

---

That alleged Russian/Chinese government narrative is a prime example of the US government and MSM lying to you.

---

No, those governments also put out their own lines of propaganda and you should be aware of that.

---

An analysis that goes against the prevailing narrative will be branded as such. See the episode about Hunter's laptop, which the deep state/51 intell figures branded as Russian propaganda, and the MSM pushed that fake narrative in lockstep.

---

Yes, but also . . . Russia has pushed out propaganda on this subject.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/biden-former-fbi-informant-russian-intelligence/

---

Red herring.

The info about Hunter's laptop came straight from the repair man to the public. What some indicted ex-FBI informant had to say about that is completely irrelevant, and no different from what the 51 intelligence veterans said (in fact he would be far less credible than any of them as an indicted ex-informant).

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OAN is an explicitly right-wing outlet that has every reason to fudge facts in an attempt to hit a Democratic president. And you accuse me of just swallowing a narrative?

---

It's so amazing to me that certain types go all enraged at potential yarns on one side, yet when it's overt and massive on their side they are silent or dismissive.

---

You can see it when people get very passionate telling you about how the US government can lie to you, and how the US mass media can lie to you (which is true, sometimes!) . . . but then turn around and basically swallow a narrative from the Russian or Chinese government uncritically. That's not being a healthy skeptic, that's just choosing sides and sticking with them.

---

That alleged Russian/Chinese government narrative is a prime example of the US government and MSM lying to you.

---

No, those governments also put out their own lines of propaganda and you should be aware of that.

---

An analysis that goes against the prevailing narrative will be branded as such. See the episode about Hunter's laptop, which the deep state/51 intell figures branded as Russian propaganda, and the MSM pushed that fake narrative in lockstep.

---

Yes, but also . . . Russia has pushed out propaganda on this subject.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/biden-former-fbi-informant-russian-intelligence/

---

Red herring.

The info about Hunter's laptop came straight from the repair man to the public. What some indicted ex-FBI informant had to say about that is completely irrelevant, and no different from what the 51 intelligence veterans said (in fact he would be far less credible than any of them as an indicted ex-informant).

---

No, I'm agreeing that the early narrative about the laptop was a bit of propaganda from the American side. Point to you on that.

But Russia has also pushed out other propaganda on this, whether or not the laptop story was true, and I think an honest broker has to acknowledge both phenomena.

---

It's not just that the hunter laptop was propaganda on the American side, the relevant aspect is that it was deceptively branded as Russian propaganda by the deep state and MSM.

It's not just that the hunter laptop was propaganda on the American side, the relevant aspect is that it was deceptively branded as Russian propaganda by the deep state and MSM.

For the sole purpose of helping Joe Biden win the election. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Ultimately it was about election interference. What would a disinterested party call this?