‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

UkraineGate—Inconvenient Facts

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  465
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 October 2020 17:35
 

So, you’re claiming that Biden pressured Republican senators Rob Portman and Ron Johnson too?

You’re “debatable” is laughably not debatable.

Or do you have evidence that they had family members on the board of Burisma too?

You’ve bought a lie… hook, line, and sinker.  This endeavor has all the rigor of flat eartherism.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
14 October 2020 18:31
 
weird buffalo - 14 October 2020 05:35 PM

So, you’re claiming that Biden pressured Republican senators Rob Portman and Ron Johnson too?

You’re “debatable” is laughably not debatable.

Or do you have evidence that they had family members on the board of Burisma too?

You’ve bought a lie… hook, line, and sinker.  This endeavor has all the rigor of flat eartherism.

I never mentioned the Republicans, whose record on Ukraine is just as bad as the Democrats’.

But this is just another lame attempt at obfuscation on your part—first you throw out European leaders, now it’s Republicans. The latest development isn’t about that. It’s that there’s no longer any doubt that Biden lied about his role in his son’s pay-to-play scheme.

Your dependence on red herrings is laughable, both in terms of how often you resort to them and how clumsily you deploy them. You’re use of them is a glaring counterexample to the old adage, “practice makes perfect.”

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  465
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 October 2020 19:54
 

Did you know that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin decided to fake the moon landing?  But in order to make it as real as possible, they filmed it on location.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
15 October 2020 22:13
 

I’m having second thoughts about this latest development. It looks to me like Hunter Biden was set up as a way to make those incriminating emails public. A honey trap. The key to unraveling it will be finding the woman. I think she was either in cahoots with or being paid by whoever wanted to make the emails public. She made the sex tape, possibly without Biden’s knowledge, got him drunk and after he passed out, staged that picture of him asleep with the crack pipe in his mouth. Who falls asleep smoking crack? Maybe it’s possible if you smoke enough of it.

The woman takes the laptop with the pictures and video back to her accomplice/employer, who then adds the emails (how common is that? I don’t have any emails stored on my computer, I don’t think) and abandons it at the repair shop. Assuming the repair guy isn’t orchestrating the whole thing. The repair guy allegedly turned the laptop over to the FBI a while back, but only after he made a copy of the hard drive. When he never heard back from the FBI, he went to Giuliani with the hard drive copy.

The Ukrainian emails themselves might still be authentic. We know the Russians hacked Burisma’s server back in January; maybe they’re the ones behind this. Maybe they doctored the hacked emails, or maybe they made them up out of whole cloth. Who can say? And what about the Chinese emails? Are the Russians and Chinese working together now? But no, the Chinese want Biden to win.

More likely they both just want to make monkeys out of us and don’t care who wins the election. The operation has Putin’s heavy hand written all over it: clumsier, even, than one of Professor Snowflake’s red herrings.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3162
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
16 October 2020 01:16
 

The Chinese don’t want Biden to win.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  465
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
16 October 2020 09:30
 

How about this…. what evidence is there that Shokin was investigating Burisma?

As far as I can tell, he prosecuted exactly zero people of significance during his 13 months in office.  No elected official.  No oligarch.  Only low level employees of a few companies.  He didn’t even charge any former government officials from the previous regime.  He basically did nothing.

If I’m worried about an investigation into my son… why would I oust a guy who does nothing?  He’s not a threat.

The ONLY evidence is a quote from Shokin after the fact.  Nothing from the time in question.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 October 2020 13:35
 
weird buffalo - 16 October 2020 09:30 AM

How about this…. what evidence is there that Shokin was investigating Burisma?

As far as I can tell, he prosecuted exactly zero people of significance during his 13 months in office.  No elected official.  No oligarch.  Only low level employees of a few companies.  He didn’t even charge any former government officials from the previous regime.  He basically did nothing.

If I’m worried about an investigation into my son… why would I oust a guy who does nothing?  He’s not a threat.

The ONLY evidence is a quote from Shokin after the fact.  Nothing from the time in question.

I’ll save you the trouble of researching this beyond what CNN and FOX news tell you, or even going back and reviewing this thread. The president of Ukraine—Poroshenko—was shaking down corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs by agreeing to stop investigating them in exchange for bribes. His scheme predated Shokin and continued after Shokin was booted.

That Burisma and its founder were corrupt is not in doubt; the company got its big break when its founder, Zlochevsky, as Minister of Ecology when Ukraine privatized its state-owned assets, awarded all the country’s most lucrative mining licenses to Burisma. The corruption continued after that. Despite Biden’s lies to the contrary, the company was absolutely under investigation at the time Shokin was fired, not only by Shokin but by the UK and possibly other European countries as well.

Ukrainian President Yanukovich (Putin’s corrupt bastard) was ousted in a US backed coup in 2014 and replaced with Poroshenko (our corrupt bastard). By that time, Zlochevsky and other corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs had already stolen everything there was to steal from Ukraine, under the guise of privatization. So the only way Poroshenko could get rich was by launching investigations into these corrupt oligarchs and their companies, then dropping the investigations in exchange for bribes.

Zlochevsky refused to bribe Poroshenko. Instead, he stacked Burisma’s board with influential foreigners including Hunter Biden and a former president of Poland. The purpose, of course, was to pressure Poroshenko into dropping the investigation without a bribe. (This was apparently a common strategy used by a number of corrupt Ukrainian companies to escape investigation without paying bribes to Poroshenko.) The strategy succeeded when Biden threatened to withhold billions of dollars in loan guarantees unless the investigations into Burisma and Zlochevsky were dropped. Poroshenko ended the investigations, threw Shokin under the bus and replaced him with another one of his own stooges.

So the question of whether Shokin was corrupt is largely a red herring; it was Poroshenko who was heading the scheme to drop legitimate investigations into Burisma and other Ukrainian companies in exchange for bribes. Burisma got away without paying because Poroshenko couldn’t afford to lose the billions in loan guarantees that Biden threatened to withhold. Shokin’s firing was mere window dressing, a way for Poroshenko to deflect scrutiny away from himself.

You’ve got to hand it to Zlochevsky. He started out working hand in hand with Yanukovich. When Poroshenko unexpectedly replaced Yanukovich it seemed that the tables had turned on poor Zlochevsky. But he managed to pull an end run around Poroshenko (who, remember, was our corrupt bastard) by co-opting the US onto his own side.

Poroshenko, of course, was succeeded by Zelensky, who campaigned on a platform of anti-corruption—and who Trump tried to pressure into publicly stating that he was investigating the Bidens. Zlochevsky has since been arrested—in absentia—by a Ukrainian anti-corruption court.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  465
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
16 October 2020 16:15
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 October 2020 01:35 PM

So the question of whether Shokin was corrupt is largely a red herring

The answer to this question is central to the claims of the documentary you linked.  Right now, you are telling me that the documentary YOU linked is a red herring.

Either he was investigating corruption, or he wasn’t.  The idea that Biden would have an interest in targeting him for ousting relies on the idea that Shokin was investigating Burisma.  Please supply some evidence to support this claim to motive.

[ Edited: 16 October 2020 16:21 by weird buffalo]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 October 2020 18:00
 
weird buffalo - 16 October 2020 04:15 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 October 2020 01:35 PM

So the question of whether Shokin was corrupt is largely a red herring

The answer to this question is central to the claims of the documentary you linked.  Right now, you are telling me that the documentary YOU linked is a red herring.

Either he was investigating corruption, or he wasn’t.  The idea that Biden would have an interest in targeting him for ousting relies on the idea that Shokin was investigating Burisma.  Please supply some evidence to support this claim to motive.

He was investigating corruption, all right—but only as a stooge for Poroshenko, who was using the investigation to extort bribes from the companies and oligarchs under investigation. The documentary provides plenty of evidence for this; in fact, one of the central claims refuted by the documentary is the lie that Burisma and Zlochevsky weren’t under investigation. Watch episode 2: A Not So Dormant Investigation. They interview people—including but not limited to Shokin—who were working on the investigation. They show documents associated with the investigation. And they provide evidence that the investigation was ended a few months after Shokin was canned.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 October 2020 18:17
 

The reason I say it’s a red herring is because the answer to the question about whether Shokin was actually investigating Burisma doesn’t depend on whether he was corrupt. If he was corrupt, then he was investigating Burisma as an active participant in Poroshenko’s extortion scheme. If he wasn’t corrupt, then he was investigating Burisma because they were corrupt and he was doing his job. Either way, he was investigating Burisma.

The documentary leans in the direction of the latter; they try to portray Shokin as less corrupt than either his predecessor or his successor. I’m skeptical of that, but as I say: it doesn’t really matter because either way he was in fact investigating Burisma.

I’ll grant you, the issue of Shokin’s corruption isn’t your red herring this time, but it’s still a red herring.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3690
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
16 October 2020 18:38
 

This is getting almost impossible not to roast.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 October 2020 18:42
 

We can sum the whole pile of corruption up this way: A corrupt American vice president pressures a corrupt Ukrainian president into firing a corrupt Ukrainian investigator and ending an investigation into a corrupt Ukrainian company and it’s corrupt founder.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7171
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 October 2020 18:44
 
LadyJane - 16 October 2020 06:38 PM

This is getting almost impossible not to roast.

Be careful, Professor Snowflake is liable to complain to the moderators.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3690
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
16 October 2020 19:02
 

You seem rather taken with weird buffalo springfield.  Maybe if yer lucky he’ll let you carry his balls around in your purse.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  465
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
17 October 2020 02:16
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 October 2020 06:17 PM

The reason I say it’s a red herring is because the answer to the question about whether Shokin was actually investigating Burisma doesn’t depend on whether he was corrupt. If he was corrupt, then he was investigating Burisma as an active participant in Poroshenko’s extortion scheme. If he wasn’t corrupt, then he was investigating Burisma because they were corrupt and he was doing his job. Either way, he was investigating Burisma.

The documentary leans in the direction of the latter; they try to portray Shokin as less corrupt than either his predecessor or his successor. I’m skeptical of that, but as I say: it doesn’t really matter because either way he was in fact investigating Burisma.

I’ll grant you, the issue of Shokin’s corruption isn’t your red herring this time, but it’s still a red herring.

No, there more possibilities.  Here, lets list all of them, but first… without motive.

1: Shokin did nothing.  Ie, literally did nothing but let nature run it’s course.  He showed up to work and maybe played solitaire all day.
2: Shokin improved investigations.  He assigned more resources, and pursued evidence.
3: Shokin worsened investigation.  Either blocking them, or denying resources so investigations were ineffective.

Investigations either stayed the same, got worse, or got better.  For Biden to have a motive to get Shokin fired, number 2 must be true.  If 1 or 3 is true, then there is no reason for Biden to get involved.

Investigations happening before Shokin or after indicate that 3 is true (or at best 1), but it contraindicates 2.  Your documentary presents no evidence that 2 was happening.  Maybe I missed it, if so, give a time code to help me out. 

There is evidence that Burisma has been investigated.  There is no evidence that Shokin did any of it, or that he directed others to do it.  The evidence we have indicates a combination of 1 and 3.  He blocked resources to investigations, and largely was a lazy person who didn’t do his job.  He didn’t actively impede investigations, but denied them resources to be successful.  This is what the actual evidence shows us.

[ Edited: 17 October 2020 02:19 by weird buffalo]
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >