-->
@sadolite
So even as an idiot, you admit that Trump has not created 500 profitable businesses?
Trump is an idiot
Posts
Total:
365
-->
@Double_R
The bureaucracy is not transparent.The US government is probably the most transparent government on earth in terms of who is responsible for what and anyone with a computer and a phone line can easily Google the powers of the Vice President. The idea that the Ukrainian government didn’t know how this works is absurd.
The idea that what you might read on a .gov civics lecture is a perfect representation of what really happens is absurd. Leftist sources say things like "Biden become a policy leader on Ukraine" Yea I bet he did. He was very interested...
Obama was the president of the United States. He had way more to lose than anything he could have gained by allowing Biden to strongarm an ally to save his son or whatever the charge here is.
He had nothing to lose because the apparatus of the deep state backed him. That is the media establishment, the DOJ, IRS, etc.. etc... would not even dream of creating a scandal out of it. Indeed Biden wasn't even afraid to brag about it. Only an outside like the people who told Trump would dare, and at that point they could not dream someone like him would hold high office.
Furthermore there was probably more than Biden's personal interest in establishing a deep-state friendly government in Ukraine See [1] below.
1.) Doesn't mention Shokin.Because they didn’t have to. Shokin was in charge of the office. This is like someone says we need to replace the US government and someone like me comes along and says “dUh they didn’t mention Biden”.
Granted
2.) 2 months 6 days after quid pro quoYour link is to a calendar. Not sure what value you thought that added to the conversation.You asked me to back up the claim that the pressure on Ukraine to get rid of Shokin was coming from more than just Biden so I linked you to a letter signed by 8 senators including 3 republican senators back in 2016, a full 3 years before any of this stuff would come out asking for the prosecutors office to be purged. That’s the reality. Adjust accordingly.
I asked for evidence that there was a general desire to remove Shokin before Biden started gunning for Shokin, afterward it makes just as much sense that Biden was using his influence to increase the pressure.
[1] Keep in mind it likely wasn't just about burisma but also the crowd-strike servers and the role of corrupt Ukrainian elements in the fabrication of russiagate. A conspiracy does not require that everyone who aids it knows of it. People on the senate committee for Ukraine could well have been fed reports from the corrupt US ambassador and executive branch that led them to believe Shokin was corrupt.
You mean this Kasko:Yes. Your argument hinges on the personal defense of the man trying to save face after having just been fired for corruption, so I gave you the word of his deputy who had nothing to do with any of this. The latter option on its face certainly seems more reliable.
Hardly, just as Vindman was canonized a sacred whistleblower when Trump wanted to fire him, I give credence to the one who was fired for asking too many questions, not the one who kept his job.
It was not solely Shokin's statements that indicate the investigation was ongoing, what you dismissed as "personal property" remains convincing to those of us who aren't naive children:
A comment befitting a naive child.A comment adding nothing of value whatsoever to the conversation except to showcase a bit of ego and condescension.
If you seriously are suggesting that a super-rich oligarch was being stripped of his property and it had nothing to do with an investigation into his giant oil firm I can only conclude you are not engaging honestly.
But I didn’t expect you to engage honestly with that, because there is no argument here.
No there really wasn't an argument. People's assets aren't frozen if they aren't under ongoing suspicion (real or for show).
... but setting aside that the seizure did nothing to target Burisma ...
I set it aside instantly because it is an absurd notion on the face of it.
Your claim is that Shokin’s seizure of Zlochevsky’s assets shows that the investigation into Burisma was very much alive, ... the seizure occurred almost 5 months after Biden got Shokin fired.
Once again you get the timing wrong (and it's kind of important, what with cause and effect being a thing):
Seizure:
Date: About Feb 4th 2016.
Shokin being fired:
Date: March 29, 2016
Now does March come before or after February?
This is far more easily explained as retaliation than an honest investigative move, especially considering that everything was dropped months later after Shokin left.
So from no-investigation to not honest investigation. You forget the context, Biden wouldn't care if Shokin was out for revenge or was doing an honest investigation. He would be protecting his money and perhaps other less obvious deep state interests either way.
He didn’t care whether they were investigated, according to Gordon Sondland anyway, all he cared about was that the investigation was announced.According to the recording he did care if they were investigated. Deep State Sycophant vs hard evidence? I'm going with hard evidence.I have no idea what you are talking about. What tape?
The audio recording of the call between Trump and Zelenzkyy that was "whistleblown" and turned into one of the most transparent and ridiculous impeachments that I hope the USA will ever see.
And what makes Gordon Sondland a “deep state Sycophant, besides the fact that he defected from the dear leader’s narrative?
He changed his story, I guess sycophant was uncharitable. He could be the victim of blackmail. You see this would be considered "lying to congress" and he'd have been swatted if he wasn't willing to play ball (Like Stone and others).
He was no more a political opponent than Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Yang, Gabert, etc..Complete nonsense. Biden was the clear front runner at that point, and he polled better than any other democrat against Trump by far. Trump knew this.
He was the front-runner that's true.
There are multiple independently plausible explanations that don't involve Trump asking for a frame jobAnd none of them fit the puzzle better than the conclusion that Trump attempted to use foreign aid to extort a foreign ally into helping him slander a domestic political opponent.
It's not slander if it's true, and it's not extortion without a threat.
And not for nothing but I notice you continue to keep blaming everything on this imaginary deep state bogeyman MAGA world concocted. Do you have any evidence of who is in this deep state and what they have done, you know, actual evidence, or do you find it logically valid to just slide them in wherever it is convenient?
It's an abstraction not a small group of bond villains conspiring to take over the world. Well I mean there might be such a thing, but the vast majority of what is meant by "deep state" are unelected bureaucrats individually working towards their own ideological focus and cooperating in collective action without explicit conspiracy.
They (probably) form conspiracies implicitly by suggesting ideal outcomes and openly speculating about potential scenarios.
You can tell these things are happening from timings that are beyond coincidental. The media arrive at Roger Stone's house before the swat team. How? A grand conspiracy? No, it only took one ideologue to send them there. It took a few more to decide that a middle aged political character warranted dozens of people with assault rifles much less handcuffs. To make such a decision required an awareness of optics and the desire to embarrass Trump or project the image that he is a dangerous criminal surrounded by dangerous criminals.
That is a conspiracy if only a small one. Many small conspiracies may link together without need for central direction. The scale of the deep state is inferable from the reactions that don't occur. If there was no deep state of considerable size, the small conspiracies would have backlash. There is never any.
We're about to be treated to another round of "oopsies" just honest mistakes that led to the FBI taking just about everything in the Trump estate in search for records that were probably declassified and definitely known to be there for a long time.
One little conspiracy to search for anything to feed the dying monstrosity of the Jan 6 committee. One little conspiracy to get it to a judge which might be reminded whose island he might have flown to. One little conspiracy to suggest there were nuclear secrets. One little conspiracy to suggest they were sent to Russia. One little conspiracy to suggest the death penalty for a former president.
That's what corruption looks like, when people think the ends justify the means and they are on the same page about who needs to disappear no grand conspiracy is necessary; but the results are the same.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The idea that what you might read on a .gov civics lecture is a perfect representation of what really happens is absurd
We’re talking about the powers of the Vice President. The way to learn what that is is to read. And again, nearly everyone on earth can look it up, so it’s beyond ridiculous to suggest the Ukrainian government didn’t know how this works.
I asked for evidence that there was a general desire to remove Shokin before Biden started gunning for Shokin, afterward it makes just as much sense that Biden was using his influence to increase the pressure.
Are you seriously suggesting that senators like Ron Johnson signed off on the letter asking for the prosecutors removal because of Biden’s influence?
If you seriously are suggesting that a super-rich oligarch was being stripped of his property and it had nothing to do with an investigation into his giant oil firm I can only conclude you are not engaging honestly.
Or you are not getting it.
We’re talking about Hunter Biden and what inspired Joe’s involvement. The only plausible explanation for Biden doing everything you claim is that he was doing it to protect his son, but his son wasn’t in any danger.
You used the Slochevsky example as evidence that Burisma was under investigation, which is why it’s relevant that they seized his personal property and not Burisma’s. It means they were not targeting the company, and if the company itself was not the target then Hunter had no exposure. But we knew this already because the time period Burisma was being investigated for was 2010 through 2012 and Hunter joined the board in 2014, so none of this was ever about him.
Once again you get the timing wrong (and it's kind of important, what with cause and effect being a thing):
The conversation Biden recounted where he pushed for Shokin’s revival occurred in December 2015. Shokin was not removed on the spot, it would take months before finally being voted out by the Ukrainian parliament.
The audio recording of the call between Trump and Zelenzkyy that was "whistleblown" and turned into one of the most transparent and ridiculous impeachments that I hope the USA will ever see.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no audio recording of that call, there is only the transcript.
And what makes Gordon Sondland a “deep state Sycophant, besides the fact that he defected from the dear leader’s narrative?He changed his story, I guess sycophant was uncharitable
How did he change his story?
It's an abstraction not a small group of bond villains conspiring to take over the world. Well I mean there might be such a thing, but the vast majority of what is meant by "deep state" are unelected bureaucrats individually working towards their own ideological focus and cooperating in collective action without explicit conspiracy.
So in other words, it’s just people you disagree with operating in such a way that you disagree with. You have no evidence of any alleged participation of whomever this group encompasses, it just sounds about right.
Got it.
-->
@Double_R
Once again you get the timing wrong (and it's kind of important, what with cause and effect being a thing):The conversation Biden recounted where he pushed for Shokin’s revival occurred in December 2015. Shokin was not removed on the spot, it would take months before finally being voted out by the Ukrainian parliament.
Oooooohh so you're claiming that after the quid pro quo but before Shokin was actually fired, Shokin knew he was going to be fired at the behest of Biden and even though there was no on-going investigation he decided to take revenge on Biden for his imminent removal.
Is that what you're saying?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I never made a claim other than stating the facts. I said that this was better explained by retaliation than the natural evolution of an alleged ongoing investigation into Burisma, but whether that is the case is irrelevant.
You are the one claiming that the seizure of Zlochevsky’s assets shows that Shokin was actively investigating Burisma at the time Biden pushed for his firing. I’m saying no it doesn’t.
So since you failed to respond to anything else, let’s just do a quick recap;
Hunter was never in any personal danger, so the idea that Biden would upend US foreign policy to intervene on his son’s behalf is already a stretch.
Biden did not have the authority to do what he threatened Ukraine with and Ukraine knew this, making it even more unlikely that this came from Biden
We know that there was a consensus among various US intelligence agencies as well of many of our own foreign allies to get rid of Shokin, making it irrational at best to argue that this was all about Hunter.
The reason they wanted Shokin gone is because he wasn’t properly dealing with corruption, so removing him would have served no purpose.
There is no case here, this is yet another right wing conspiracy theory that doesn’t pass the sniff test.
-->
@Double_R
I never made a claim other than stating the facts. I said that this was better explained by retaliation than the natural evolution of an alleged ongoing investigation into Burisma, but whether that is the case is irrelevant.
Retaliation for what?
So since you failed to respond to anything else, let’s just do a quick recap;
I succeeded in focusing in on the important part. There is no point meandering around a bazillion little points if you are willing to evade the heart of the matter.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Retaliation for what?
He was taken down so he decided to take others down.
I succeeded in focusing in on the important part. There is no point meandering around a bazillion little points if you are willing to evade the heart of the matter.
This isn’t the heart of the matter, it was a nonsense throw away line that you decided to cherry pick out of everything discussed because you think it makes a point.
Again, I am not the one claiming that the seizure of Slochevsky’s assets is evidence of anything. You are. Whether it is best explained by retaliation is completely irrelevant to whether Biden did what he did as a corrupt rogue VP or he was acting within the best interests of the US.
Let me know if you plan to address the points I made.
-->
@Double_R
Let me know if you plan to address the points I made.
Oh your 'points':
The idea that what you might read on a .gov civics lecture is a perfect representation of what really happens is absurdWe’re talking about the powers of the Vice President. The way to learn what that is is to read. And again, nearly everyone on earth can look it up, so it’s beyond ridiculous to suggest the Ukrainian government didn’t know how this works.
Strawman
I asked for evidence that there was a general desire to remove Shokin before Biden started gunning for Shokin, afterward it makes just as much sense that Biden was using his influence to increase the pressure.Are you seriously suggesting that senators like Ron Johnson signed off on the letter asking for the prosecutors removal because of Biden’s influence?
I am suggesting he was fed false information that Shokin was corrupt because it was in the interest of the deep state, particularly Biden to do so.
If you seriously are suggesting that a super-rich oligarch was being stripped of his property and it had nothing to do with an investigation into his giant oil firm I can only conclude you are not engaging honestly.Or you are not getting it.We’re talking about Hunter Biden and what inspired Joe’s involvement. The only plausible explanation for Biden doing everything you claim is that he was doing it to protect his son, but his son wasn’t in any danger.You used the Slochevsky example as evidence that Burisma was under investigation, which is why it’s relevant that they seized his personal property and not Burisma’s. It means they were not targeting the company, and if the company itself was not the target then Hunter had no exposure. But we knew this already because the time period Burisma was being investigated for was 2010 through 2012 and Hunter joined the board in 2014, so none of this was ever about him.Once again you get the timing wrong (and it's kind of important, what with cause and effect being a thing):The conversation Biden recounted where he pushed for Shokin’s revival occurred in December 2015. Shokin was not removed on the spot, it would take months before finally being voted out by the Ukrainian parliament.
This is the only relevant point because it is the only one that speaks to your only coherent argument that Biden was not protecting his corruption. I am certainly not letting this one drop. See the end of this post.
The audio recording of the call between Trump and Zelenzkyy that was "whistleblown" and turned into one of the most transparent and ridiculous impeachments that I hope the USA will ever see.I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no audio recording of that call, there is only the transcript.
I remember hearing it, maybe I remembered wrong. Either way there is a transcript so this is irrelevant.
And what makes Gordon Sondland a “deep state Sycophant, besides the fact that he defected from the dear leader’s narrative?He changed his story, I guess sycophant was uncharitableHow did he change his story?
My opinion on Sondland is irrelevant. We can discuss it at a later time, but I won't let this be used as a red herring.
It's an abstraction not a small group of bond villains conspiring to take over the world. Well I mean there might be such a thing, but the vast majority of what is meant by "deep state" are unelected bureaucrats individually working towards their own ideological focus and cooperating in collective action without explicit conspiracy.So in other words, it’s just people you disagree with operating in such a way that you disagree with. You have no evidence of any alleged participation of whomever this group encompasses, it just sounds about right.
My opinion on what constitutes the "deep state" is irrelevant. We can discuss it at a later time, but I won't let this be used as a red herring.
Double_R: I never made a claim other than stating the facts. I said that this was better explained by retaliation than the natural evolution of an alleged ongoing investigation into Burisma, but whether that is the case is irrelevant.Retaliation for what?Double_R: He was taken down so he decided to take others down.
At random? It was just a coincidence he targeted Zlochevsky? Out of all possible rich people? He just decided that Zlochevsky once looked at him funny and that taking him down a notch would be his final act?
Double_R: You are. Whether it is best explained by retaliation is completely irrelevant to whether Biden did what he did as a corrupt rogue VP or he was acting within the best interests of the US.
It is profoundly relevant, and if you can't think of how I will explain once you answer my questions. In post #119 IwantRooseveltagain said:
IwantRooseveltagain; I don’t think these guys deserve such a complete and thoughtful response. It’s impossible to counter nonsense with facts. Sometimes asking questions can provide more light than offering answers. Maybe they will see the light if they answer your questions honestly.
Answer my questions honestly, I think you're deflecting because you know the corner you backed yourself into.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Answer my questions honestly, I think you're deflecting because you know the corner you backed yourself into.
It’s not a corner of anything other than a red herring.
Shokin knew Biden played a large role in his firing and he knew either then or would soon thereafter learn that Biden’s son worked for Slovchesky. And again, the conversation regarding Shokin’s firing took place in December and the seizure took place in February.
These facts alone tell us nothing, but you have offered up an explanation based on them that you are using as evidence for your case. So I offered up the alternative that the seizure was connected as it was the closest Shokin could get to the Bidens.
So does this narrative make sense? Not really, which is why I don’t care about this and why it’s irrelevant to our conversation. Your narrative doesn’t align with the facts either, so where does that leave us? No where. This part of the story is useless.
Neither of us are basing our positions on this specific part of the story, so why are you all of a sudden so fixated on it?
My opinion on what constitutes the "deep state" is irrelevant. We can discuss it at a later time, but I won't let this be used as a red herring.
Actually, your opinion on it is very relevant because it underpins everything you’re arguing. You’ve mentioned the deep state in at least half of your responses and asserted with no evidence whatsoever that they are likely behind whatever suspicions you are basing your position on. Here’s an example…
I am suggesting he was fed false information that Shokin was corrupt because it was in the interest of the deep state, particularly Biden to do so.
This is the point where it became clear (if it wasn’t already) to anyone reading this exchange that you believe what you do not because of sound logic and reasoning but because of fallacious conspiratorial thinking. You have no other information here other than the fact that a bipartisan group of 8 US senators all expressed in writing to Ukraine that they wanted the prosecutor fired, and from that you concluded that they believed what they did because they were fed misinformation by the conspirators.
This is a hallmark of conspiratorial thinking; everyone is either duped by the conspiracy or a participant in it. So when faced with this information you just hand waive it away. This tells me a lot about how you are approaching the information here, which tells me a lot about why you believe what you do.
-->
@Double_R
Shokin knew Biden played a large role in his firing and he knew either then or would soon thereafter learn that Biden’s son worked for Slovchesky. And again, the conversation regarding Shokin’s firing took place in December and the seizure took place in February.
Ooookay, so your theory is that: There was no investigation into burisma, not for at least four years, Hunter never even came up on the radar, Hunter's money laundering services were not in any danger real or imagined.... but when Shokin caught wind of Biden pressuring for his firing he learned (in 2 months of not-investigating) of Hunter being at Burisma and decided to punish Slovchesky for being involved with the Bidens.
Alternatively: There was an investigation into burisma, Shokin knew about Hunter (like he later said he did), and when Biden brought the full diplomatic pressure of the US to bear (via quid pro quo among and more) Shokin accelerated the investigation and seized Slovchesky's assets for some reason, perhaps revenge or perhaps to put pressure on Slovchesky to flip.
So I offered up the alternative that the seizure was connected as it was the closest Shokin could get to the Bidens.
And thereby admitted that Shokin saw the Bidens and Slovchesky as a package deal. Something he certainly would not do if he never investigated the connections between them. Yet there were no (known) connections before 2014, which means Shokin investigated burisma after 2014 noting Hunter's odd habit of being paid large amounts of money by them.
The simplest explanation tends to be correct. Instead of believing in an investigation that stopped in 2012 and then restarted for 2 months after the quid pro quo, Shokin's story fit the facts with fewer assumptions.
Your rejection of the Biden quid pro quo as nefarious (or at least as nefarious as the claimed Trump quid pro quo) rests entirely on your assertion that Biden could not possibly have seen Shokin as a threat to his money laundering. Yet you simultaneously have to claim that the seizure was the result of revenge against Biden and not an ongoing investigation to maintain that claim. You jumped from the frying pan into the frier because if Shokin reacted to the quid pro quo by going after Biden's money laundering then clearly Shokin was quite capable of being a threat to the money laundering and to the objective observer probably already was, your hypothesis of lightning investigations motivated by revenge strain credulity.
It was your claim (bolded above) that failed in the face of evidence. Sure you can claim that Biden's motivations were as pure as the driven snow, but you cannot prove it and the balance of evidence shows that there was a personal motivation.
Trump's request too cannot have personal motivation ruled out, as you said Biden was the front-runner; not exactly a super strong motivation but possible. However the corruption he asked to be investigated was quite real, he didn't ask for anyone to lie or plant evidence. Therefore the claim that Trump is as pure as the driven snow stands at least as strong as your claim that Biden was only motivated by stopping corruption.
There is the objective difference however that Biden admitted to making threats, while the transcript of Trump's call showed no threat.
You have no other information here other than the fact that a bipartisan group of 8 US senators all expressed in writing to Ukraine that they wanted the prosecutor fired
They did not, they asked for reform in the office he headed 2 months after the quid pro quo. Don't exaggerate. They did not mention him by name, for all you know they didn't even know his name. Senators don't have their own private intelligence agencies, they eat reports given to them by the likes of the US ambassador to Ukraine.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They did not, they asked for reform in the office he headed 2 months after the quid pro quo. Don't exaggerate. They did not mention him by name, for all you know they didn't even know his name. Senators don't have their own private intelligence agencies, they eat reports given to them by the likes of the US ambassador to Ukraine?
Bullshit. The U.S. State Department, the bi-partisan committee of 8 Senators, and our allies in Europe all wanted Shokin gone. It was not some plot by Biden. Read the newspapers dummy!
They did not, they asked for reform in the office he headed 2 months after the quid pro quo. Don't exaggerate. They did not mention him by name, for all you know they didn't even know his name. Senators don't have their own private intelligence agencies, they eat reports given to them by the likes of the US ambassador to Ukraine?IwantRooseveltagain: Bullshit. The U.S. State Department, the bi-partisan committee of 8 Senators, and our allies in Europe all wanted Shokin gone. It was not some plot by Biden. Read the newspapers dummy!
Why did they want him gone and when?
The only evidence presented in this thread is from after the quid pro quo and after Shokin said he was investigating the corruption at burisma. It also does not mention Shokin by name, nor does it mention firing. In fact it is super generic political speak. "reform" like "healthcare reform", a word which exists so that people who don't agree at all can pretend they want the same thing. It probably means "fire Shokin" but I am not at all convinced the people who signed the letter knew that.
If you can't disengage your political bias for even one moment, consider this example: "Everybody, wanted Biden's corruption investigated. Millions of Americans and Europeans wanted it investigated. Senators and congressmen wanted it investigated. A democratic presidential nominee wanted it investigated."
You see that's all true, but it only happened after Trump made a big deal of it by asking Ukraine to investigate. Before that it was only a few people who paid a hell of a lot of attention.
To pretend like there was some giant outcry and Trump was only going along with the crowd would be dishonest. Just as it is dishonest to pretend there was some giant outcry that Biden was only going along with. Six months before his quid pro quo democrats were saying Shokin was just great.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why did they want him gone and when?
Since his appointment a year ago, (2015) Mr. Shokin had been criticized for not prosecuting officials, businessmen and members of Parliament for their roles in corrupt schemes during the government of former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. He also did not press cases for sniping by the police and opposition activists during the street protests in 2014 that killed more than 100 people and wounded about 1,000.
The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.
NY Times, 3/29/16
In July 2015, shortly after his appointment, reformist minority member Yehor Soboliev advanced a motion to dismiss Shokin for corruption, gaining 127 of the required 150 signatures including several members of the ruling parties.[56] Representatives of the EU and the United States pressed Poroshenko for his removal,[2] as did the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[3]
Wikipedia
I mean all you’ve got to do is read. Read and use critical thinking skills
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your rejection of the Biden quid pro quo as nefarious (or at least as nefarious as the claimed Trump quid pro quo) rests entirely on your assertion that Biden could not possibly have seen Shokin as a threat to his money laundering. Yet you simultaneously have to claim that the seizure was the result of revenge against Biden and not an ongoing investigation to maintain that claim.
You haven’t read a word I’ve said.
My rejection of the idea that Biden’s involvement in Shokin’s firing was nefarious is the result of a basic Occam’s razor test that takes into account the entire picture. This one part about the seizure and what best explains it is once again, completely irrelevant and a total red herring. But I’ll humor you anyway.
When I said it was more retaliatory, that doesn't just mean he’s out for revenge, it also means he’s trying to save face. He’s a public official fired for corruption, that’s humiliating and like anyone else he has a reputation and legacy to protect. So of course he’s going to do whatever makes him look like the victim of political persecution, this is routine for politicians. Seizing Slochevsky’s assets was just one way to lend credibility to the idea that he was doing nothing wrong. And clearly, it works.
What’s remarkable is the hypocrisy and double standards you apply to this. The “quid pro quo” you are alleging occurred in December 2015. When I argued that all of US intelligence as well as the rest of the developed world wanted Shokin fired you asked for evidence before the quid pro quo. Clearly you saw anything after that as insufficient as it was better explained to you as the result of conspiratorial actors trying to rewrite the story. Yet here you are pointing to a seizure that occurred two months after the quid pro quo as evidence of what occurred before it.
The fact that the seizure took place after does not mean it was illegitimate, but it also doesn’t mean it was. That’s the point here. We don’t know. And because we don’t know this part of the story tells us nothing. That’s the only point I was making.
Going back to the bigger picture, the fact that nearly everyone wanted Shokin out of office because he was corrupt alone is what makes the Occam’s razor test clear. At worst, Biden’s personal interests aligned with US interests, but even in that scenario he was still acting as the VPOTUS.
What’s also remarkable is that the entire story of the quid pro quo came from Biden himself. So your Occam’s razor explanation not only defies the obvious state of international affairs at the time, but includes the idea that Biden acted corruptly and decided to tell the whole world about it two years later as he was preparing for a presidential run. Trump has definitely shown himself to be that stupid, Biden has not.
And as far as evidence goes, here are a few more for you:
Here’s the Irish times back in March of 2016 reporting on the European Union’s hailing the firing of Shokin:
Here’s a report from March 28th 2016, a day before the firing on protests outside the Ukrainian Capitol demanding Shokin’s removal:
Here’s an article from the Atlantic Council back in November 2015 talking about Shokin’s corruption and why he needs to be fired:
Lastly, here’s an article from November 2015 from the UKRWeekly
“Mr. Shokin is the second procurator general appointed by President Poroshenko (and approved by Ukraine’s Parliament) who has been widely criticized for not only failing to prosecute high-profile crimes, but also providing cover for corrupt officials and resisting EU reforms.
Criticism that had been circulating among Western circles became public in late September, when U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt said in a speech to the Odesa Financial Forum that corrupt prosecutors are “openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
-->
@Double_R
IwantRooseveltagain: NY Times, 3/29/16
That's the day of his firing. Four months after quid pro quo.
IwantRooseveltagain: I mean all you’ve got to do is read. Read and use critical thinking skills
Critical thinking skills like looking at dates.
When I said it was more retaliatory, that doesn't just mean he’s out for revenge, it also means he’s trying to save face. He’s a public official fired for corruption, that’s humiliating and like anyone else he has a reputation and legacy to protect. So of course he’s going to do whatever makes him look like the victim of political persecution, this is routine for politicians. Seizing Slochevsky’s assets was just one way to lend credibility to the idea that he was doing nothing wrong. And clearly, it works.
Yes it does work because the only way he would know to strike in that direction is if he suspected/knew of the Biden's corruption with burisma. If he knew/suspected then he was not ignorant as you claimed. If he was not ignorant he was a threat and Biden did have a personal motivation in protecting his corruption.
If Shokin was corrupt and seeking revenge against the Bidens, but there was no suspicion/investigation of burisma in connection to them he would not have gone after Slochevsky. He would have done some other frame job.
An analogy would be Biden hiding a gun, and then demanding a cop be fired; but you're saying he couldn't have been motivated by stopping the cop from snooping around his hiding spot. Yet as soon as the cop hears about being fired at the behest of Biden he goes RIGHT FOR THE GUN. This only makes sense if he knew where the gun was hidden already.
What’s remarkable is the hypocrisy and double standards you apply to this. The “quid pro quo” you are alleging occurred in December 2015. When I argued that all of US intelligence as well as the rest of the developed world wanted Shokin fired you asked for evidence before the quid pro quo. Clearly you saw anything after that as insufficient as it was better explained to you as the result of conspiratorial actors trying to rewrite the story. Yet here you are pointing to a seizure that occurred two months after the quid pro quo as evidence of what occurred before it.
There is nothing wrong with inferring the past from something that happened later. The error is in confusing causality.
Pressure in the US admin and anti-Russian elements in Ukraine could very easily cause the perception that Shokin was corrupt to spread around. Most 'news' simply parrot each other and do not represent independent sources.
In the case of the seizure we have two possibilities for causality: Caused by investigation before quid pro quo or caused by revenge after quid pro quo, i.e. quid pro quo caused revenge.
I never denied that since the quid pro quo happened before the seizure it should be examined to see if could have caused the seizure. I was surprised however that you suggested that it could have caused it, because either scenario shows Shokin was onto the Biden corruption. In fact the revenge hypothesis is more compelling. An investigation might have been threatening but yet to discover the Bidens involvement. Revenge skips right past that.
And because we don’t know this part of the story tells us nothing.
I've explained what it tells us at least three times in three different ways at this point. I probably won't explain it again unless someone besides yourself has questions.
Going back to the bigger picture, the fact that nearly everyone wanted Shokin out of office because he was corrupt alone is what makes the Occam’s razor test clear.
Not everyone, at least not before the pressure campaign from the white houses started: https://clintonfoundationtimeline.com/january-31-2022-new-memo-reveals-senior-state-officials-praised-ukraine-prosecutor-general-shokin-months-before-vp-biden-demanded-his-firing/
At worst, Biden’s personal interests aligned with US interests, but even in that scenario he was still acting as the VPOTUS.
"US interests" harumph, I already suggested above that his personal interests aligned with the interests of others. Shokin was suspicious of the maidan riots that insurrectioned (Jan 6 style) the 'pro russian' government. He certainly had enemies inside and outside Ukraine, and the war hawks in the US executive branch were among them as they wanted a complete wipe of anything remotely pro-russian in Ukraine.
One doesn't simply show up to a country and demand money when being a corrupt leader. The reason Biden had such influence in the new regime was because he and others attached favors to backing them. There is a recording of US officials discussing Ukrainian high offices like a pokemon game. The investigation into burisma was probably simply the last straw that lit a fire under Biden.
This does bring up an interesting point, if it's "ok" for Biden to have some personal interests as long as there is also a "public" interest, why is it not ok for Trump to have some personal interests if the truth would also be in the public interest?
What’s also remarkable is that the entire story of the quid pro quo came from Biden himself. So your Occam’s razor explanation not only defies the obvious state of international affairs at the time, but includes the idea that Biden acted corruptly and decided to tell the whole world about it two years later as he was preparing for a presidential run. Trump has definitely shown himself to be that stupid, Biden has not.
You just said Biden has not shown himself to be "that stupid", have you uh... seen the internet the past three years?
Biden and his allies against Shokin did a good job spreading the anti-Shokin message. That's why it was a bragging point for him. Trump would probably have done the same thing in due time if his house wasn't full of traitors. He probably wouldn't brag that he saved his money laundering operation.
It's two things that together make the quid pro quo "threat" (which he bragged about) + "money laundering" (which he did not brag about, but we have confirmed independently)
In Trumps case the personal motivation is ostensibly harming a frontrunner democratic candidate, not something that was or could be hidden. The threat remains pure hearsay.
Here’s the Irish times back in March of 2016
Same time as firing
Here’s a report from March 28th 2016, a day before the firing-
You said it for me thanks
Here’s an article from the Atlantic Council back in November 2015 talking about Shokin’s corruption and why he needs to be fired:
Now that's much earlier. Looks like you accidentally pasted the same link three times.
Criticism that had been circulating among Western circles became public in late September, when U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt said in a speech to the Odesa Financial Forum that corrupt prosecutors are “openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
US officials spreading the word to go against Shokin in Ukraine... what did I say?
These four prosecutors have been identified by Transparency International as Yanukovych administration holdovers who are loyal to the current president and will compromise the independence of the specialized prosecutor’s office.
Again what did I say? Turning Ukraine into a EU/US puppet might be in someone's interests but not mine. Maybe if these people hadn't had their hands so deep in Ukrainian internal affairs this war wouldn't have happened.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the only way he would know to strike in that direction is if he suspected/knew of the Biden's corruption with burisma.
All he needed to know was that Joe Biden’s son worked for Slovchesky. From there, if he was in fact guilty of the negligence everyone around the world was accusing him of, it would make perfect sense for his next move to be going after Slovchesky to reverse engineer this Biden quid pro quo story. That’s not an over the top scenario, and even you understand that the fact that the seizure occurred after the “quid pro quo” makes it questionable.
In other words, there is more than one legitimate explanation for that. Which means, logically, that the seizure is not evidence of either narrative because it fits into both.
Not everyone, at least not before the pressure campaign from the white houses started:
This article is another example of how propaganda works. They’re depending on the reader to not look at the letter they’re referencing and certainly to not use Google.
Shokin was hired in February of 2015. The letter is dated June 2015 - only 4 months on the job which is not enough time to make any significant impact. In the letter it states:
“We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government… The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement, and the judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner,"
Nothing in this letter talks about anything he actually did, it’s all talking about what he said he was going to do. It’s basically an introduction letter.
This does bring up an interesting point, if it's "ok" for Biden to have some personal interests as long as there is also a "public" interest, why is it not ok for Trump to have some personal interests if the truth would also be in the public interest?
I never said it was ok for Biden to have personal interests involved, I said “worst case”.
In any event, conflicts of interest are not a good thing, and no one is saying that Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma was anything good. But what actually matters in matters of corruption is whether the conflict of interest was the driving factor in the decision that was made. There is absolutely no evidence of that here, whereas with Trump it is very clear that Trump’s primary interest was slandering his political opponent.
You just said Biden has not shown himself to be "that stupid", have you uh... seen the internet the past three years?
Biden has definitely lost a step over the past decade, which is perfectly normal for any man approaching 80. What he displays is moments of confusion, which again, is perfectly normal. What Biden has never done is tell a crowd that clean coal is when you take coal out and scrub it with a brush. Or that the answer to California’s wild fire problem is a rake. Or ask his team why we can’t just drop a nuclear bomb in a hurricane.
Pressure in the US admin and anti-Russian elements in Ukraine could very easily cause the perception that Shokin was corrupt to spread around. Most 'news' simply parrot each other and do not represent independent sources.
The most telling comment of your post.
In the face of clear evidence that there was in fact wide spread international support for the firing of Shokin, your reflexive response is to assert, without any evidence, that they may have just been duped.
This brings me back to the point I already made, everyone is either part of the conspiracy or duped by the conspiracy. It can’t possibly be the case that intelligent professionals used their own thinking skills to reach their own conclusions and found that the thing you are saying is BS, so you have to default to whatever explanation doesn’t include that idea.
This isn’t how evidence works, this isn’t how logic and reason works. Let me know when you have a case that doesn’t hinge on some grand conspiracy where the entire world was too stupid to know anything other than what Vice President Joe Biden told them.
-->
@Greyparrot
I know as much as anyone, Nothing beyond Trumps house was raided by the FBI. How could I possible know anything else regarding motives by anyone? I don't even know why Trumps home was raided nor will I ever. No one will. Whos words would I believe? I wasn't there. I didn't see the so called warrant if there even is or was one. In todays world all that can be proved is that something happened in vague description. Why, what, where or how are answers you will never get a truthful answer to because everyone is a liar according to everyone else. Someone is telling the truth, but who?
-->
@sadolite
We will never see the affidavit because the FBI is above the 4th amendment.
-->
@Double_R
the only way he would know to strike in that direction is if he suspected/knew of the Biden's corruption with burisma.All he needed to know was that Joe Biden’s son worked for Slovchesky. From there, if he was in fact guilty of the negligence everyone around the world was accusing him of, it would make perfect sense for his next move to be going after Slovchesky to reverse engineer this Biden quid pro quo story. That’s not an over the top scenario, and even you understand that the fact that the seizure occurred after the “quid pro quo” makes it questionable.In other words, there is more than one legitimate explanation for that. Which means, logically, that the seizure is not evidence of either narrative because it fits into both.
No it doesn't. It only reasonably fits into the investigation narrative because of the number of odd assumptions required to make the revenge theory work compared to the simple theory that there was an investigation and the investigation found corruption. Let's count the coincidences:
Investigation:
1.) anti-russian elements in US and EU governments don't like Shokin for a different reason than Biden.
Total coincidences: 1.
Revenge that was planned an executed entirely after 2016:
1.) Biden just happened to be the most prominent and possible origin of the push to fire Shokin who claimed he was investigating burisma where Biden was routing bribes through.
2.) Shokin just happened to zero in on Biden as the one to revenge against (despite there being an international chorus against him?)
3.) Shokin managed to learn that Hunter was inexplicably working for burisma and decided to use that to frame Biden with a personal motive that oh-so-noble Biden never had. Reminiscent of Smaug in the movie adaptation, has thieves in his mountain and decides to wipe out laketown.
4.) And the whopper of coincidences, the frame job Shokin prepared just happened to be essentially true!
Total coincidences: 4
Let's put the same amount of coincidences in a simpler setting:
Bob's son is running around lighting fires
1.) Bob says the fire dept is evil and useless and pushes them to get fired (pun intended), but he's not alone; in fact a the entire city council sent him on that task (he and his supporters claim)
3.) Fire department decides to get revenge, but instead of going after the city council or anyone else they focus entirely on bob
4.) Fire department learn that Bob has a son, they follow Bob's son with the intent to make it look like Bob's son was committing arson, but when they find him he was committing arson!
Vs:
Bob's son is running around lighting fires
1.) Fire department is suspicious of Bob's son and Bob gets wind of it.
1.) Bob says the fire dept is evil and useless and pushes them to get fired (pun intended), he's working hard to get the city council to agree with him.
3.) Fire department can see what is happening and decides they need to catch Bob's son in the act before they are ousted
4.) Fire department follow Bob's son and find him committing arson.
One narrative works, the other is silly.
Not everyone, at least not before the pressure campaign from the white houses started:This article is another example of how propaganda works. They’re depending on the reader to not look at the letter they’re referencing and certainly to not use Google.Shokin was hired in February of 2015. The letter is dated June 2015 - only 4 months on the job which is not enough time to make any significant impact. In the letter it states:“We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government… The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement, and the judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner,"Nothing in this letter talks about anything he actually did, it’s all talking about what he said he was going to do. It’s basically an introduction letter.
Nothing in the senate letter mentioned anything he did, it's basically a vague complaint letter. Apply your rules equally.
There is absolutely no evidence of that here, whereas with Trump it is very clear that Trump’s primary interest was slandering his political opponent.
Well since you have so spectacularly failed to rule out personal interest for Biden, how about you explain how you know Trump was more interested in slander than the truth.
Keep in mind you've been absolutely comfortable with rejecting the testimony of people if you thought you could come up with any reason they might want to lie. I will definitely be holding you to the same standard.
What Biden has never done is tell a crowd that clean coal is when you take coal out and scrub it with a brush. Or that the answer to California’s wild fire problem is a rake. Or ask his team why we can’t just drop a nuclear bomb in a hurricane.
I'm not going to let this turn into a red herring, but the differences between Biden gaffes and Trump gaffes is that half the Trump gaffes are hearsay (sometimes hearsay^2 or hearsay^3) where Biden gaffes are always recorded. Weird....
Pressure in the US admin and anti-Russian elements in Ukraine could very easily cause the perception that Shokin was corrupt to spread around. Most 'news' simply parrot each other and do not represent independent sources.The most telling comment of your post.In the face of clear evidence that there was in fact wide spread international support for the firing of Shokin, your reflexive response is to assert, without any evidence, that they may have just been duped.
I have seen no evidence of "wide spread" it has been entirely limited to a very finite set of politicians and diplomatic officials. It was entirely out of the public eye for even years after with the exception perhaps of urban Ukraine.
This isn’t how evidence works, this isn’t how logic and reason works. Let me know when you have a case that doesn’t hinge on some grand conspiracy where the entire world was too stupid to know anything other than what Vice President Joe Biden told them.
I wonder what counts as a "grand" conspiracy? How many people? If disinformation takes such a large conspiracy of people then why do so many "intelligent professionals" call it a threat?
You can lecture me on evidence and logic, but I won't take it to heart. You find reasons to reject counter-narrative evidence no less than I. Logic is how you find out which rejections are justified, although aside from causality these are very inductive arguments.
For instance when you dismissed the clintonfoundationtimeline.com link you said:
This article is another example of how propaganda works. They’re depending on the reader to not look at the letter they’re referencing and certainly to not use Google.
What did you use google for? They link to the letter in the article. You assumed they were unreliable and you didn't even read far enough to find that link.
You dismissed it as an "introduction letter" and stated that it was "only 4 months on the job which is not enough time to make any significant impact", but it was only 6 months before Joe Biden decided that he needed to go.
4 months = just got in the door
6 months = enough time for an international consensus against Shokin to form
3 months = enough time to find Hunter and go after Zlochevsky in an attempt to frame Biden as being personally motivated to protect the corruption that was actually happening
Time works strangely in Ukraine, or when you have a narrative to protect.
It's pretty obvious that Shokin pissed off some powerful people in those six months. It just so happens that the simplest explanation for all known evidence is that Biden was one of them.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It was a transition team meeting. Presidents have had those for decades. The incoming president has all sorts of meetings like that. Biden did too.
-->
@Public-Choice
It was a transition team meeting.
If you are talking about the meeting in Trump Tower with Russians you are wrong. This happened during the campaign.
-->
@Greyparrot
We will never see the affidavit because the FBI is above the 4th amendment.
You’re an idiot. The FBI is enforcing the law. Trump, on the other hand is a crook.
You do know that the president can just declassify stuff on a whim. This came up previously when a president accidentally stated confidential information out loud, so it is really stupid to think he didn't just on a whim declassify the files he took as he left office. He doesn't have to do a stroke of a pen or anything like that, the president can just declassify whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants to.
The raids were not about classified documents. They were about something else the FBI doesn't want to share quite yet.
-->
@sadolite
I don't even know why Trumps home was raided nor will I ever.
Exercise your critical thinking skills. Read and be careful about where you get your information.
FOX News, The Epoch Times, talk radio, blogs, etc. are NOT credible sources of information. Don’t be a dummy!
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You do know that the president can just declassify stuff on a whim. This came up previously when a president accidentally stated confidential information out loud, so it is really stupid to think he didn't just on a whim declassify the files he took as he left office. He doesn't have to do a stroke of a pen or anything like that, the president can just declassify whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants to.
That’s a lie. There is a process that has to be followed and it has to be documented. Don’t be an idiot.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Politifact a left leaning fact check organization disagrees with you. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's the day of his firing. Four months after quid pro quo.
JC you idiot, the article by The NY Times was published the day he got fired. The article reports how Shokin was believed to be corrupt since he was appointed back in 2015.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
James Risch, R-Idaho. According to CNN, he told reporters, "The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process."
You dummy - they are reporting a quote from this dummy Senator. That doesn’t make it true.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The article explains that the president can declassify information whenever he feels like it and point to a situation where he did allow access to classified information to people without clearance but nothing could happen because he controls everything about the declassification and classification process.
I think you are likely a retarded 16 year old, but if you are being honest about your military experience than you should be familiar about the authority of the president over classified material since even grunts in the military get access to some classified materials and have some knowledge over how classification works.
I think you are likely a retarded 16 year old, but if you are being honest about your military experience than you should be familiar about the authority of the president over classified material since even grunts in the military get access to some classified materials and have some knowledge over how classification works.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The article is inadequate for the question you are trying to answer. Here is a link with a much more complete answer.
Apart from whether there is any evidence that such an order actually existed, the notion has been greeted with disdain by national security legal specialists. Glenn S. Gerstell, the top lawyer for the National Security Agency from 2015 to 2020, pronounced the idea that whatever Mr. Trump happened to take upstairs each evening automatically became declassified — without logging what it was and notifying the agencies that used that information — “preposterous.”