‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 > 
 
   
 

UkraineGate—Inconvenient Facts

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 October 2020 18:14
 
LadyJane - 16 October 2020 07:02 PM

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

Har har. For that, I’ll have to get a purse—and he’ll have to get some balls.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 October 2020 18:43
 
weird buffalo - 17 October 2020 02:16 AM

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.

If Shokin had been impeding the investigation, wouldn’t you expect it to have gathered steam after he was fired? But actually, the opposite is true: the investigation was stopped within months after Biden put the screws to Poroshenko. Plus, the fact that Zlochevsky has since been arrested in absentia by a Ukrainian anti-corruption court makes clear (as if it weren’t already) that there was no legitimate, non-corrupt reason for stopping the investigation.

So your scenario doesn’t make any sense. You’re just grasping at straws now.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
19 October 2020 09:48
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 October 2020 06:43 PM
weird buffalo - 17 October 2020 02:16 AM

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.

If Shokin had been impeding the investigation, wouldn’t you expect it to have gathered steam after he was fired? But actually, the opposite is true: the investigation was stopped within months after Biden put the screws to Poroshenko. Plus, the fact that Zlochevsky has since been arrested in absentia by a Ukrainian anti-corruption court makes clear (as if it weren’t already) that there was no legitimate, non-corrupt reason for stopping the investigation.

So your scenario doesn’t make any sense. You’re just grasping at straws now.

I’m not seeing evidence of an investigation during Shokin’s time in office.

In order to establish motive, Shokin must have been a threat.  So please, present evidence that the motive could have been real.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4103
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
19 October 2020 09:50
 

It’s almost like we’ve seen this kind of thing before.

Image Attachments
 
Propaganda.jpg
 
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2020 13:52
 
weird buffalo - 19 October 2020 09:48 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 October 2020 06:43 PM
weird buffalo - 17 October 2020 02:16 AM

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.

If Shokin had been impeding the investigation, wouldn’t you expect it to have gathered steam after he was fired? But actually, the opposite is true: the investigation was stopped within months after Biden put the screws to Poroshenko. Plus, the fact that Zlochevsky has since been arrested in absentia by a Ukrainian anti-corruption court makes clear (as if it weren’t already) that there was no legitimate, non-corrupt reason for stopping the investigation.

So your scenario doesn’t make any sense. You’re just grasping at straws now.

I’m not seeing evidence of an investigation during Shokin’s time in office.

In order to establish motive, Shokin must have been a threat.  So please, present evidence that the motive could have been real.

You’re contradicting yourself now, Einstein. Time for a breathalyzer lockout for your computer?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2020 13:55
 
LadyJane - 19 October 2020 09:50 AM

It’s almost like we’ve seen this kind of thing before.

Meh. That’s insulting to Goebbels, who was more clever.

Image Attachments
 
Resize_of_1399032014293746020563674.jpg
 
 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
19 October 2020 14:56
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 October 2020 01:52 PM
weird buffalo - 19 October 2020 09:48 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 18 October 2020 06:43 PM
weird buffalo - 17 October 2020 02:16 AM

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.

If Shokin had been impeding the investigation, wouldn’t you expect it to have gathered steam after he was fired? But actually, the opposite is true: the investigation was stopped within months after Biden put the screws to Poroshenko. Plus, the fact that Zlochevsky has since been arrested in absentia by a Ukrainian anti-corruption court makes clear (as if it weren’t already) that there was no legitimate, non-corrupt reason for stopping the investigation.

So your scenario doesn’t make any sense. You’re just grasping at straws now.

I’m not seeing evidence of an investigation during Shokin’s time in office.

In order to establish motive, Shokin must have been a threat.  So please, present evidence that the motive could have been real.

You’re contradicting yourself now, Einstein. Time for a breathalyzer lockout for your computer?

I’m not contradicting myself at all.  You’re just so twisted in loops that you can’t remember which lie you’ve believed most recently.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2020 17:34
 
weird buffalo - 17 October 2020 02:16 AM

There is evidence that Burisma has been investigated.

weird buffalo - 19 October 2020 09:48 AM

I’m not seeing evidence of an investigation during Shokin’s time in office.

The documentary presented plenty of evidence—testimony and documents—of seven investigations into Burisma and Zlochevsky going on at the time Biden put the screws to Poroshenko. And also that they were ended shortly thereafter.

You’re still fixated on the shiny object. Like I said, firing Shokin was merely a distraction, a way for Poroshenko to end the investigation with a facade of respectability. It wouldn’t have mattered who was in Shokin’s position at the time. Poroshenko was the one calling the shots.

 

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
20 October 2020 08:26
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2020 19:06
 

While the circumstances of their release are suspect, the emails themselves appear to be authentic. At least according to Tony Bobulinski, one of Hunter Biden’s former business partners. The link to the Newsweek article is blocked, but the title is:
Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden Associate, Claims He Met Joe Biden, Discussed China Deals
By Jeffery Martin On 10/22/20 at 8:56 PM EDT

Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski told reporters at a Thursday press conference that he discussed business deals with Chinese entities with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and members of the Biden family.

...

“I have heard Joe Biden say that he has never discussed business with Hunter,” Bobulinski said, reading from a prepared statement. “That is false.”

Bobulinski alleged that the Bidens were mentioned by pseudonyms in an email he received in May 2017 concerning the allocation of equity from Sinohawk Holdings, a holding company of which Bobulinski was CEO. According to Bobulinski, the email said that 10 percent of the money would be “held by H for the Big Guy.”

“In that email, there’s no question that ‘H’ stands for Hunter, ‘Big Guy’ for his father, Joe Biden,” Bobulinski said. “And ‘Jim’ for Jim Biden. In fact, Hunter often referred to his father as the ‘Big Guy’ or ‘my chairman.’ On numerous occasions it was made clear to me that Joe Biden’s involvement was not to be mentioned in writing but only face to face.” Bobulinski also said that both Hunter and Jim Biden were “paranoid about keeping Joe Biden’s involvement secret.”

 

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 October 2020 19:40
 

Both a Fox News reporter and someone at noted liberal rag the Wall Street Journal have already debunked Bubolinski’s claims by…. you know… reading the texts and emails.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2020 20:56
 
weird buffalo - 23 October 2020 07:40 PM

Both a Fox News reporter and someone at noted liberal rag the Wall Street Journal have already debunked Bubolinski’s claims by…. you know… reading the texts and emails.

Links?

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
24 October 2020 11:59
 

I could, but I think you need to learn how to research whether something might be true or not.  It would save us all a lot of fucking time.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
24 October 2020 14:17
 
weird buffalo - 24 October 2020 11:59 AM

I could, but I think you need to learn how to research whether something might be true or not.  It would save us all a lot of fucking time.

You’re full of shit, I looked at the WSJ and there was no article. And Fox isn’t worth looking at. Your ability to “research” is apparently limited to what you read in the American media. So it’s no surprise you’re so ignorant. It’s your eagerness to put your stupidity on full display that really sets you apart.

Who’s this “us” now, anyway? Are you developing a multiple personality disorder to add to all your other defects?

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
24 October 2020 14:49
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >