While people stare at Trumps Ukraine comments, Biden is let off the hook.

[TECSHARE]

Eh I mean I think everything has been confirmed in the broad strokes of what is going on here.

Bidens son worked for a company that was under the scrutiny of the Ukranian government.
Biden had been involved in the pushing out of the prosecutor that was investigating his son.
That's it.

That's the conflict of interest.

But that's the thing: Shokin wasn't investigating Biden's son. He was investigating the Burisma company itself. He even says this:



The investigation started before Hunter Biden took his role at the company.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau said on Friday it was investigating activity at Burisma between 2010-2012, but that it was not looking into changes to its board in 2014, when Hunter Biden joined.

Ukrainian prosecutors have said they are not investigating Hunter Biden, but are looking into the legality of Burisma’s activities before Biden joined its board. Burisma, which denies any wrongdoing, has faced allegations of dodging taxes and of improperly securing licenses for gas deposits.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine/ukraine-must-investigate-joe-bidens-son-says-ex-ukrainian-pm-idUSKBN1WD0PK

Has nothing to do with Hunter Biden. I really just don't think Joe Biden would be dumb enough to brag about how he had Shokin fired if his son was actively being investigated by Shokin. That's because he wasn't. Its a non-issue. If new investigations need to be opened because of Hunter Biden's involvement with the company, that's another story. But it has nothing to do with Shokin.

"Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”"

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

Once again, as I repeatedly explained before,your timeline is meaningless for several reasons. First of all he was receiving payments from Burima Holdings well before he was on the board. Second, I already mentioned, Hunter Biden being placed in the very lucrative board position AFTER Joe Biden fixed their prosecutor problem could have just as easily been part of their payoff/reward for doing so.

Regardless if Hunter was the one to initiate the original crimes that started the investigation, it certainly does seem evident he was quite complicit in helping to hide those crimes by selling his father's influence for pay. Also, at the time Biden made those public statements, he probably never imagined his powerful international cartel buddies would lose control, and would prevent any repercussions against him no matter what he said. Criminals at this level are quite known for falling to their own hubris after all.

[1714476024]

1714476024

[1714476024]

1714476024

[1714476024]

1714476024

[1714476024]

1714476024

[nutildah]

Once again, as I repeatedly explained before,your timeline is meaningless for several reasons. First of all he was receiving payments from Burima Holdings well before he was on the board. Second, I already mentioned, Hunter Biden being placed in the very lucrative board position AFTER Joe Biden fixed their prosecutor problem could have just as easily been part of their payoff/reward for doing so.

He worked in no capacity for Burisma prior to 2014. You keep bringing up this board member stuff as if its the only thing that matters. The investigation had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. Why can't you accept that? "Specific plans" for a future investigation... that's fine. It had nothing to do with the investigation ongoing at the time.

Regardless if Hunter was the one to initiate the original crimes that started the investigation

As I repeatedly have explained to you: Hunter Biden didn't join Burisma until 2014. He was not working for them in any capacity prior. You just revealed how little you actually understand about the order of events, so who are you to criticize my timeline? I just posted a quote from an article (which you are probably now going to dismiss as fake news):

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau said on Friday it was investigating activity at Burisma between 2010-2012, but that it was not looking into changes to its board in 2014, when Hunter Biden joined.

Edit - here's a more direct mention of Hunter not being hired until 2014:

Burisma hired Hunter Biden after Yanukovich was toppled in a popular revolt in 2014 and replaced by a pro-Western government.

Burisma, which denies any wrongdoing, has faced allegations of dodging taxes and of improperly securing licenses for gas deposits.

Again, nothing to do with Hunter Biden. Zero. Zip. Nada. You're just unwilling to be honest about what actually happened.

Try again.

[squatz1]

Eh I mean I think everything has been confirmed in the broad strokes of what is going on here.

Bidens son worked for a company that was under the scrutiny of the Ukranian government.
Biden had been involved in the pushing out of the prosecutor that was investigating his son.
That's it.

That's the conflict of interest.

But that's the thing: Shokin wasn't investigating Biden's son. He was investigating the Burisma company itself. He even says this:



The investigation started before Hunter Biden took his role at the company.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau said on Friday it was investigating activity at Burisma between 2010-2012, but that it was not looking into changes to its board in 2014, when Hunter Biden joined.

Ukrainian prosecutors have said they are not investigating Hunter Biden, but are looking into the legality of Burisma’s activities before Biden joined its board. Burisma, which denies any wrongdoing, has faced allegations of dodging taxes and of improperly securing licenses for gas deposits.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine/ukraine-must-investigate-joe-bidens-son-says-ex-ukrainian-pm-idUSKBN1WD0PK

Has nothing to do with Hunter Biden. I really just don't think Joe Biden would be dumb enough to brag about how he had Shokin fired if his son was actively being investigated by Shokin. That's because he wasn't. Its a non-issue. If new investigations need to be opened because of Hunter Biden's involvement with the company, that's another story. But it has nothing to do with Shokin.

I had mistyped.

I had meant that they had been investigating the company, but the point still stands on the conflict of interest. There's no reason that we should let Biden off the hook for this, he had still allowed for a clear conflict of interest to occur without disclosing it.

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.s

[nutildah]

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.

[squatz1]

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.

Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden.

Without a doubt what Hunter Biden was doing. He was using his name to help a company look better as they were in a very tough time. I even said before, it's not rare for someone with literally no experience in that particular industry or company to be on the board of that company.

I'm just pointing out that this is a conflict of interest. That's it.

[Spendulus]

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.

Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden....

When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above.

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

[squatz1]

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.

Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden....

When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above.

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

Just to further explain what I meant when I typed that -- if you were to see I had been talking about how no one will know the exact reason that he was fired.

Biden is going to say he was fired by an international effort to remove him due to corruption.
Trump is going to say the prosecutor was fired due to going after Bidens son, Hunter Biden.

We know that the prosecutor was fired because of Biden forcing him out, yes, no one disagrees there. But no one knows the true reason that Biden had pushed for his removal. And we most likely will never know.

[Spendulus]

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.

Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden....

When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above.

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

Just to further explain what I meant when I typed that -- if you were to see I had been talking about how no one will know the exact reason that he was fired.

Biden is going to say he was fired by an international effort to remove him due to corruption.
Trump is going to say the prosecutor was fired due to going after Bidens son, Hunter Biden.

We know that the prosecutor was fired because of Biden forcing him out, yes, no one disagrees there. But no one knows the true reason that Biden had pushed for his removal. And we most likely will never know.

I meant exactly what I said. All that you have done is note that no one ever can truly know another's internal motivations. Except to the extent that it is evidenced by his statements or actions.

Repeating,

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

[squatz1]

Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.

Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden....

When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above.

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

Just to further explain what I meant when I typed that -- if you were to see I had been talking about how no one will know the exact reason that he was fired.

Biden is going to say he was fired by an international effort to remove him due to corruption.
Trump is going to say the prosecutor was fired due to going after Bidens son, Hunter Biden.

We know that the prosecutor was fired because of Biden forcing him out, yes, no one disagrees there. But no one knows the true reason that Biden had pushed for his removal. And we most likely will never know.

I meant exactly what I said. All that you have done is note that no one ever can truly know another's internal motivations. Except to the extent that it is evidenced by his statements or actions.

Repeating,

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

I think you're right in a way.

I think a large amount of people can agree that what Biden did is a problem and is a conflict of interest,  me included.

I think that the prosecutor was fired due to getting too close to Bidens son, and maybe Biden had another cover -- as the prosecutor maybe was corrupt as well. So Biden had been able to get away with both.

[Spendulus]

....

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

I think you're right in a way.

I think a large amount of people can agree that what Biden did is a problem and is a conflict of interest,  me included.

I think that the prosecutor was fired due to getting too close to Bidens son, and maybe Biden had another cover -- as the prosecutor maybe was corrupt as well. So Biden had been able to get away with both.

In a nutshell.

Biden: Prove that he's guilty.

Trump: Prove that he's not guilty.

The styling of both arguments incorporates the logical error of the "Irrefutable Hypothesis," but it's being used in opposite directions simultaneously.

Lawyer tactics to obscure the truth.

[TwitchySeal]

Slightly off Topic, but the story of Ukraine from 2010, when Viktor Yanukovych was elected till 2014 when he was removed is pretty crazy.

He basically just brought in a bunch of Oligarchs from Russia to bribe the right officials and milk the government and people for every penny he could.  Apparently he was averaging close to $2m USD every single day for alost 4 years in just bribes.

When he was ousted and fled to Russia, they seized the house he was living in and couldn't believe all the money he had spent on it - he had just been literally spending as much money as possible on himself all while looting the entire government.  They turned it into a tourist attraction.  Google Mezhyhirya Residence for pictures.

Manafort was working for this guy for 4 or 5 years, spending most of his time in Ukraine as a political advisor for the future Ukrainian President/Russian Oligarch.  I think this is primarily where he got all his money, and his taste for spending all his money, which meant he had to commit bank/tax fraud to keep it up, and now he will probably die in prison.  He likely would've gotten away with all the crime if Trump lost in 2016.  Small world.

The new President of Ukraine is a Comedian and Pianist. Very Talented.

[Spendulus]

Slightly off Topic, but the story of Ukraine from 2010, when Viktor Yanukovych was elected till 2014 when he was removed is pretty crazy.

He basically just brought in a bunch of Oligarchs from Russia to bribe the right officials and milk the government and people for every penny he could.  Apparently he was averaging close to $2m USD every single day for alost 4 years in just bribes.

When he was ousted and fled to Russia, they seized the house he was living in and couldn't believe all the money he had spent on it - he had just been literally spending as much money as possible on himself all while looting the entire government.  They turned it into a tourist attraction.  Google Mezhyhirya Residence for pictures.

Manafort was working for this guy for 4 or 5 years, spending most of his time in Ukraine as a political advisor for the future Ukrainian President/Russian Oligarch.  I think this is primarily where he got all his money, and his taste for spending all his money, which meant he had to commit bank/tax fraud to keep it up, and now he will probably die in prison.  He likely would've gotten away with all the crime if Trump lost in 2016.  Small world.

The new President of Ukraine is a Comedian and Pianist. Very Talented.

I'm going to merit this, because it's Interesting Facts and not Political Polemics

[TECSHARE]

"Giuliani claims he has Ukrainian docs showing 'collusion' with top Dems "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVsLNmmA70


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7523253/Photo-reveals-Joe-Hunter-Biden-golfing-Ukraine-gas-company-executive-2014.html

[PrimeNumber7]

Eh I mean I think everything has been confirmed in the broad strokes of what is going on here.

Bidens son worked for a company that was under the scrutiny of the Ukranian government.
Biden had been involved in the pushing out of the prosecutor that was investigating his son.
That's it.

That's the conflict of interest.

But that's the thing: Shokin wasn't investigating Biden's son. He was investigating the Burisma company itself. He even says this:



The investigation started before Hunter Biden took his role at the company.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau said on Friday it was investigating activity at Burisma between 2010-2012, but that it was not looking into changes to its board in 2014, when Hunter Biden joined.

Ukrainian prosecutors have said they are not investigating Hunter Biden, but are looking into the legality of Burisma’s activities before Biden joined its board. Burisma, which denies any wrongdoing, has faced allegations of dodging taxes and of improperly securing licenses for gas deposits.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine/ukraine-must-investigate-joe-bidens-son-says-ex-ukrainian-pm-idUSKBN1WD0PK

Has nothing to do with Hunter Biden. I really just don't think Joe Biden would be dumb enough to brag about how he had Shokin fired if his son was actively being investigated by Shokin. That's because he wasn't. Its a non-issue. If new investigations need to be opened because of Hunter Biden's involvement with the company, that's another story. But it has nothing to do with Shokin.

I am not sure if you are aware, but Hunter Biden does not have any experience in Ukraine, nor does he have experience in the Oil/Gas industry. The position on the companies board was very likely to be a way to purchase influence from Biden. Hunter Biden was receiving $50k/month for nearly zero (if any) work.

[TwitchySeal]

"Giuliani claims he has Ukrainian docs showing 'collusion' with top Dems "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVsLNmmA70


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7523253/Photo-reveals-Joe-Hunter-Biden-golfing-Ukraine-gas-company-executive-2014.html

"We have all the evidence that the DNC colluded with Ukraine, but the media is deaf dumb and stupid as they always are and corrupt"
-Hannity

Is the evidence their talking about an affidavit from Shoken?  Or am I missing something here.

When Biden told Ukraine they had to get rid of Shoken in order to get any money (money = weapons), it wasn't just something he decided on his own, and it wasn't even just American money.  The G7 (which had just kicked Russia out for literally taking over a chunk of Ukraine) all agreed on it and most other EU countries were happy to see Shoken forced out.

Shoken was not just corrupt.  He was an anti Ukranian revolutionist, that openly went after the parties that were fighting for their independence from Russia.  He was basically a less powerful version of the president that had just been ousted.

Meanwhile, the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) agreed that it was in their best interest to not let Russia keep fucking with Ukraine.  It seems like they genuinely wanted to offer assistance, but it was pretty clear that if they did while Shoken held a powerful government position, their 'assistance' would be a waste.

Bidens son probably did do something shady to get his $600k/ year job working for a company owned by a corrupt Ukranian.  But Biden wasn't the one behind getting Shoken fired.  He just happened to be the messenger for most of the western world.

My point is - Rudy and Hannity celebrating that they got Shoken to promise something was true is just...meaningless.  All they are trying to do is rile up half the country.

[TECSHARE]

"Giuliani claims he has Ukrainian docs showing 'collusion' with top Dems "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVsLNmmA70


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7523253/Photo-reveals-Joe-Hunter-Biden-golfing-Ukraine-gas-company-executive-2014.html

"We have all the evidence that the DNC colluded with Ukraine, but the media is deaf dumb and stupid as they always are and corrupt"
-Hannity

Is the evidence their talking about an affidavit from Shoken?  Or am I missing something here.

When Biden told Ukraine they had to get rid of Shoken in order to get any money (money = weapons), it wasn't just something he decided on his own, and it wasn't even just American money.  The G7 (which had just kicked Russia out for literally taking over a chunk of Ukraine) all agreed on it and most other EU countries were happy to see Shoken forced out.

Shoken was not just corrupt.  He was an anti Ukranian revolutionist, that openly went after the parties that were fighting for their independence from Russia.  He was basically a less powerful version of the president that had just been ousted.

Meanwhile, the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) agreed that it was in their best interest to not let Russia keep fucking with Ukraine.  It seems like they genuinely wanted to offer assistance, but it was pretty clear that if they did while Shoken held a powerful government position, their 'assistance' would be a waste.

Bidens son probably did do something shady to get his $600k/ year job working for a company owned by a corrupt Ukranian.  But Biden wasn't the one behind getting Shoken fired.  He just happened to be the messenger for most of the western world.

My point is - Rudy and Hannity celebrating that they got Shoken to promise something was true is just...meaningless.  All they are trying to do is rile up half the country.

P.S. I TwitchySeal, LOVE the cock

First of all, don't modify my quotes. Second, regarding the photo, there is a big difference between yours and mine. Trump never denied knowing Epstein, and he rubbed shoulders with just about everyone in  power, so a photo of them together is meaningless. My photo however exposes that he in fact did have direct contact with Burisma Holding's board members in spite of his explicit denial that he ever discussed it with his son. Regarding the affidavits Giuliani has from Shoken are quite relevant and by far not the only evidence against the Bidens and others.  

As I previously explained, factions within the US organized a coup within Ukraine, leaving anyone with a legal complaint with no one to report the evidence to, until now. These crimes have been in the public domain for some time, but law enforcement both in the US and Ukraine were owned by the perpetrators. Now that both administrations have changed, that is all coming out, and it is going  to implicate more people than any of you can imagine as well as expose Russiagate as a desperate attempt at these perpetrators trying to cover their own asses.

[TwitchySeal]

Do you think it's fair to say that Yanukovych was more interested in keeping Russia happy while he was president of Ukraine?

I do.  And the same probably goes for Shoken. 

[TECSHARE]

Do you think it's fair to say that Yanukovych was more interested in keeping Russia happy while he was president of Ukraine?

I do.  And the same probably goes for Shoken. 

Probably < a pile of other evidence. Furthermore the two ideas are not exclusive.

[nutildah]

I am not sure if you are aware, but Hunter Biden does not have any experience in Ukraine, nor does he have experience in the Oil/Gas industry. The position on the companies board was very likely to be a way to purchase influence from Biden. Hunter Biden was receiving $50k/month for nearly zero (if any) work.

As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks.

[PrimeNumber7]

I am not sure if you are aware, but Hunter Biden does not have any experience in Ukraine, nor does he have experience in the Oil/Gas industry. The position on the companies board was very likely to be a way to purchase influence from Biden. Hunter Biden was receiving $50k/month for nearly zero (if any) work.

As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks.

I don’t believe Hunter Biden was ever actually in the Ukraine. I also don’t believe he was doing any actual work for the company.