Posted on 09/25/2019 12:23:18 AM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
The media had a field day over new hearsay accusations that president Trump was wrong to ask Ukrainian leaders to investigate political corruption related to Joe Biden. Predictably, several several House Democrats have used this news cycle to again demand Trump's impeachment. ...
Joe Biden was so proud of the role in the prosecutor's removal from investigating the company paying his son $50,000 per month merely to serve on its board that he actually bragged about it in a speech for the publication Foreign Affairs. In this speech Biden boasts his threat to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine if they did not agree to fire the prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company paying his son...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I’ll give Demoncat people one thing: at least they are consistent.
I just found the entire CFR session on youtube. It’s 59 minutes long...I’ve watched 15 so far (all I can stomach right now...time to go back to bed) but will finish it later to see what led up to his ‘bragging’. Yeah I caught the ‘solid’ part. Right you are...had to have someone who was thoroughly corrupt to ‘hide’ their activities.
“Someone had better secure a copy before Youtube censors get wind of it.”
This video has been around for a long time — long enough (I hope) for Fox, OAN, etc., to have grabbed and saved it without having to resort to a Youtube link. For once, I think this one won’t disappear.
Thanks!
.
.
.
.
.
Could he???
Biden: Obama is the fitst black man that is clean, bright and articulate to run for president.
Truth over facts.
Stand up, Chuck.
Yeah, he is that dumb.
Link please....Thanks
>>>was there ever an ‘official’ (you know, the lie that the dems tell to cover up the real reason) reason given for demanding that the prosecutor be fired?
The argument is that the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.
By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office.
A month prior to Biden’s visit, the International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption.
That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,
Bloomberg reported in May, a Ukrainian official familiar with the corruption push said that no U.S. officials pressured anyone to close cases that might have involved Biden’s son. And Biden’s own focus on corruption in Ukraine came one to two years after Ukraine prosecutors had already dropped the case Trump and Giuliani are so interested in.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion
Adam Entous, a New Yorker reporter, drew the same conclusion, noting that “there is no credible evidence that Biden” did anything untoward.
News reports out this morning on Google News: Ukraine will likely reopen this.
Just because this prosecutor was fired doesn’t mean it should have been a closed case thereafter.
And nothing justifies Biden committing blackmail.
He too will have to be investigated.
That’s what I was looking for...an ‘official’ explanation on how it will be justified. Thanks.
How will they justify Biden threatening, blackmailing Ukraine into firing him or else they get no $1 billion?
see post 31
>>>How will they justify Biden threatening, blackmailing Ukraine into firing him or else they get no $1 billion?
They will say he was representing US policy, a policy supported by the EU, the IMF and reform minded Ukranians. They will aslo say that the Burisma investigation had concluded years prior, so no benefit to Biden of having Shokin fired because he was not investigating.
So they will justify the quid pro quo they deem to be okay.
Secondly, without justifying this kind of quid pro quo (do what We say- fire him - and you benefit) they will have to justify Biden threatening them.
Lastly, it can be said Biden was threatening to protect his son but that still would not justify it.
And taking thst line puts Obama on the hook.
So they will say that the quid pro quo (fire him and you benefit to the tune of $1 billion) is okay if they say it is and that they decide when and where what quid pro quo is okay.
But it can be argued as well that Biden steeped out of bounds and was only threatening to protect his son and had no legal justification to do so.
It will be hard to justify this.
Thank you very much. Saving it to my computer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.