Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son

[TwitchySeal]

"Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son"

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/alert-video-of-joe-biden-admitting-that-he-bribed-the-ukrainian-president-with-1-billion-dollars-to-fire-lead-prosecutor-investigating-his-corrupt-son-is-being-scrubbed-from-youtube-and-other-social/

biden son isn't just corrupt he also was found to be a drug addict.

This is true.  He's not running for president though.

[Spendulus]

The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.

There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?.....

For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia.

Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."

[Viper1]

The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.

There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?.....

For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia.

Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."

WTF... So you're saying Zlochevsky bribed Biden and hired Bidens son as apart of it? Wow. Ok then. So please do tell/show me where there is anything that shows that's the case here. I'd love to see how all the US policy and everything was just an elaborate smoke screen so Biden could carry out the dirty work from the "bribe". That must have been some massive bribe for everyone to go along with that.

[TwitchySeal]

The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.

There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?.....

For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia.

Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."

The argument would be a lot more solid if there was no good reason, other than a corrupt one, to make firing Shokin a prerequisite for a $1b+ in loan.

That's just not the case though.

The whole thing is really about the EU/USA vs Russia.

Ukraine was recovering from just ousting an extremely corrupt president who had Putins full support. 

Russia had just been kicked from the G9 (now G8) for invading Ukraine and annexing crimea.

Shokin had a record of being very pro Russia and very corrupt.  He blocked the prosecution of a bunch of guys who open fired on a Ukrainian Independence protest.  He blocked the prosecution of a bunch other prosecutors who were caught taking bribes.  Yet he raided and prosecuted anti Russian groups for anything he could find.

Basically, he was an obstacle in Ukraines fight for independence from Russia.

The US and the EU considered helping Ukraine maintain their independence a matter of international security.  So did the IMF, EBRD and a bunch of other international organizations.

All of these countries and organizations also considered Shokin a serious threat to Ukraines future.

The Obama administration (not Biden) decided that loaning Ukraine the money while Shokin was still in power would make things worse, not better. 

Biden went over and convinced them to fire him.  Then he bragged about it because he accomplished something that most of the world was hoping would happen.

[Spendulus]

The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.

There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?.....

For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia.

Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."

WTF... So you're saying Zlochevsky bribed Biden and hired Bidens son as apart of it? Wow. Ok then. So please do tell/show me where there is anything that shows that's the case here. I'd love to see how all the US policy and everything was just an elaborate smoke screen so Biden could carry out the dirty work from the "bribe". That must have been some massive bribe for everyone to go along with that.

It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."

Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.

As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'

[Viper1]

It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."

Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.

As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'

So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha.

What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof".

[TECSHARE]

Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now.]

Are you saying you don't think there's any conflict of interest?

I already answered your question, so can the NO U isms.

The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.

There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe? Quoting "the hill" where they interview the guy who was fired and will have an axe to grind is your proof? You haven't presented any proof anywhere. I mean seriously. At least I could dig up again a document that outlines a bunch of allegations based on some "interview" or other. Course, it's over the top and smells of being a fake given things like it's in English yet says it was translated from Ukrainian to Russian. But still.

Geez. Now you're making yourself out to be some sort of delusional person that thinks he's the "savior" with your comment about me not being savable.

Why would you be afraid of being criticized if you have facts and proof you can show to backup your claims.

Just declaring there is no evidence doesn't make the evidence cease to exist. The issue is not just the threat tied with the funds (quid pro quo), but the conflict of interest that his immediate family was being paid by the company that the prosecutor was investigating, and his son was himself was a planned subject of investigation. Also it wasn't an "interview", it was an affidavit from Viktor Shokin, under oath which carries a penalty of perjury.

I am not a savior, clearly only the reptilians can save you...

The argument would be a lot more solid if there was no good reason, other than a corrupt one, to make firing Shokin a prerequisite for a $1b+ in loan.

That's just not the case though.

The whole thing is really about the EU/USA vs Russia.

Ukraine was recovering from just ousting an extremely corrupt president who had Putins full support. 

Russia had just been kicked from the G9 (now G8) for invading Ukraine and annexing crimea.

Shokin had a record of being very pro Russia and very corrupt.  He blocked the prosecution of a bunch of guys who open fired on a Ukrainian Independence protest.  He blocked the prosecution of a bunch other prosecutors who were caught taking bribes.  Yet he raided and prosecuted anti Russian groups for anything he could find.

Basically, he was an obstacle in Ukraines fight for independence from Russia.

The US and the EU considered helping Ukraine maintain their independence a matter of international security.  So did the IMF, EBRD and a bunch of other international organizations.

All of these countries and organizations also considered Shokin a serious threat to Ukraines future.

The Obama administration (not Biden) decided that loaning Ukraine the money while Shokin was still in power would make things worse, not better. 

Biden went over and convinced them to fire him.  Then he bragged about it because he accomplished something that most of the world was hoping would happen.

Yeah, everyone knows criminals never set up plausible deniability. All criminals always leave only one option available ot explain their actions, crime. That's how it works best! Again... more "NO U!!!" arguments and more Russian collusion hysteria.

[TwitchySeal]

Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now.]

Are you saying you don't think there's any conflict of interest?

I already answered your question, so can the NO U isms.

If honestly haven't seen a direct response from you.  Pretty sure I've read all your responses, and I just went back and checked again, but maybe I missed it.  Could you just give a yes/no answer?

I'll be more specific to make it simple.  Do you think there would be a conflict of interest if Trump was receiving payments directly from his deal with the Trump Tower in Turkey.

[TECSHARE]

If honestly haven't seen a direct response from you.  Pretty sure I've read all your responses, and I just went back and checked again, but maybe I missed it.  Could you just give a yes/no answer?

I'll be more specific to make it simple.  Do you think there would be a conflict of interest if Trump was receiving payments directly from his deal with the Trump Tower in Turkey.

I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you.

Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1

[TwitchySeal]

If honestly haven't seen a direct response from you.  Pretty sure I've read all your responses, and I just went back and checked again, but maybe I missed it.  Could you just give a yes/no answer?

I'll be more specific to make it simple.  Do you think there would be a conflict of interest if Trump was receiving payments directly from his deal with the Trump Tower in Turkey.

I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you.

Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1

I am talking about Trump.

Does he have any conflict of interest with Turkey.

The obvious answer is yes.  I think that's why you refuse to give a direct answer.  It's like you've been programmed to never criticize your dear leader.

[TECSHARE]

I am talking about Trump.

Does he have any conflict of interest with Turkey.

The obvious answer is yes.  I think that's why you refuse to give a direct answer.  It's like you've been programmed to never criticize your dear leader.

Since we are speaking for each other now...

I really enjoy fucking goats.

I gave you a direct answer. I am not your puppet, I don't dance to your demands to a response in the exact format you want.

[TwitchySeal]

I am talking about Trump.

Does he have any conflict of interest with Turkey.

The obvious answer is yes.  I think that's why you refuse to give a direct answer.  It's like you've been programmed to never criticize your dear leader.

Since we are speaking for each other now...

I really enjoy fucking goats.

I gave you a direct answer. I am not your puppet, I don't dance to your demands to a response in the exact format you want.

No. You literally didn't.  You are wrong. Here are some cliffs to refresh your memory.

I said this:

If you're going to use that logic then all income that Eric or Don Jr. get paid, and any money the company their running gets paid is all being paid directly to Donald Trump.  And that would be illegal.

Then you responded with this:

Sure, totally the same thing. All you have to do is ignore conflict of interest

And then I asked this (with Turkey and Saudi examples):

Do you think this qualifies as a conflict of interest?

and then you responded with this:

You still aren't telling me what Trump supposedly gave to Saudi Arabia in exchange.

And then I asked you a bunch more time directly if you thought there was a conflict of interest or not and you've just deflected.  

[Spendulus]

It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."

Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.

As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'

So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha.

What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof".

What's interesting about you talking about proof is that ignores the time honored smell test, and this smells. It's not a question of whether Biden did something criminal when his son just happened to get millions for nothing, in exchange for which he gave favored treatment to someone, but how it makes him look to the voters.

Particularly at a moment in time when it's settled that there was no "Russian Collusion" on the part of Trump, but we sure have something there with Biden.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/biden-in-decline.php

[TwitchySeal]

It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."

Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.

As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'

So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha.

What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof".

What's interesting about you talking about proof is that ignores the time honored smell test, and this smells. It's not a question of whether Biden did something criminal when his son just happened to get millions for nothing, in exchange for which he gave favored treatment to someone, but how it makes him look to the voters.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/biden-in-decline.php

I mean, the logic is fine I guess.  But the fact that you seem to think Trump doesn't smell but Biden does makes me think you're literally just interested in Democrats losing and Republicans winning regardless of ethics.

[Spendulus]

It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."

Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.

As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'

So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha.

What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof".

What's interesting about you talking about proof is that ignores the time honored smell test, and this smells. It's not a question of whether Biden did something criminal when his son just happened to get millions for nothing, in exchange for which he gave favored treatment to someone, but how it makes him look to the voters.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/biden-in-decline.php

I mean, the logic is fine I guess.  But the fact that you seem to think Trump doesn't smell but Biden does makes me think you're literally just interested in Democrats losing and Republicans winning regardless of ethics.

Thanks.

But that's not exactly true of what I think, although what I think is not really that interesting.

Trump has always smelled. But that does not mean he's a typical corrupt politician. Not at all. Neither was he really a Republican.

What we know is various Trump haters have been after him since Day One, and this latest scam of a Huge Wrongness In a Phone Call is no different. You know if it wasn't The Phone Call, it would be something else. Because that's what these people Do. That's how they do it. And that's grossly and ridiculously unfair.

On the contrary, Biden would have faded away, and his corrupt past would never have been spoken of, but he didn't. He wanted a shot at the Big Win. But when anyone does that, all their warts and pimples come out and are under the microscope.

[TECSHARE]

No. You literally didn't.  You are wrong. Here are some cliffs to refresh your memory.

I said this:

If you're going to use that logic then all income that Eric or Don Jr. get paid, and any money the company their running gets paid is all being paid directly to Donald Trump.  And that would be illegal.

Then you responded with this:

Sure, totally the same thing. All you have to do is ignore conflict of interest

And then I asked this (with Turkey and Saudi examples):

Do you think this qualifies as a conflict of interest?

and then you responded with this:

You still aren't telling me what Trump supposedly gave to Saudi Arabia in exchange.

And then I asked you a bunch more time directly if you thought there was a conflict of interest or not and you've just deflected.  

Yes, I literally did answer you. You selectively editing my quotes and leaving out my actual reply doesn't change that. You don't get to dictate the format of my reply goat fucker.

I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you.

Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1

Interesting related article: https://straightlinelogic.com/2019/10/16/make-the-truth-irrelevant-by-robert-gore/

[TwitchySeal]

No. You literally didn't.  You are wrong. Here are some cliffs to refresh your memory.

I said this:

If you're going to use that logic then all income that Eric or Don Jr. get paid, and any money the company their running gets paid is all being paid directly to Donald Trump.  And that would be illegal.

Then you responded with this:

Sure, totally the same thing. All you have to do is ignore conflict of interest

And then I asked this (with Turkey and Saudi examples):

Do you think this qualifies as a conflict of interest?

and then you responded with this:

You still aren't telling me what Trump supposedly gave to Saudi Arabia in exchange.

And then I asked you a bunch more time directly if you thought there was a conflict of interest or not and you've just deflected.  

Yes, I literally did answer you. You selectively editing my quotes and leaving out my actual reply doesn't change that. You don't get to dictate the format of my reply goat fucker.

I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you.

Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1

Interesting related article: https://straightlinelogic.com/2019/10/16/make-the-truth-irrelevant-by-robert-gore/

Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?

I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country.  The people that admire his disregard for the truth.

[TECSHARE]

Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?

I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country.  The people that admire his disregard for the truth

Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?

I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country.  The people that admire his disregard for the truth.

I think you're on to something here. Its like the truth just doesn't even matter anymore. All that matters is pwning the libs.

Just because you imagine real hard and get your buddies to jerk you off doesn't make me wrong or untruthful. People question me all the time and I don't attack them. I only attack disingenuous people like you and your pals who are more interested in creating a "gotcha" moment rather than debating the premise. If you don't want to have a legitimate debate then don't cry when I also play by your rules.

[TwitchySeal]

Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?

I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country.  The people that admire his disregard for the truth

Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?

I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country.  The people that admire his disregard for the truth.

I think you're on to something here. Its like the truth just doesn't even matter anymore. All that matters is pwning the libs.

Just because you imagine real hard and get your buddies to jerk you off doesn't make me wrong or untruthful. People question me all the time and I don't attack them. I only attack disingenuous people like you and your pals who are more interested in creating a "gotcha" moment rather than debating the premise. If you don't want to have a legitimate debate then don't cry when I also play by your rules.

When you are proven wrong, you just claim you didn't say that.  Even when there's an actual record of you saying it.  You just claim you didn't say that and insult anyone who says otherwise.  Are you actually convincing yourself that you didn't say it?

[TECSHARE]

When you are proven wrong, you just claim you didn't say that.  Even when there's an actual record of you saying it.  You just claim you didn't say that and insult anyone who says otherwise.  Are you actually convincing yourself that you didn't say it?

I said what I said, not what you want to interpret my words to mean. I don't give a fuck how convinced you are or how many of your buddies you call to stand around in a circle to jerk off your confirmation bias.