Put A Fork In It...

[bmw]

Let me repeat that again. And again, this is a direct quote from Joe Biden himself:
"if the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money."

Biden was stating the position of the U.S. government.

As stated by whom exactly?

[Turkeytop]

Joe Biden played a role in pushing out Ukraine’s prosecutor general

The part of the story that involves Joe Biden directly centers on the ouster of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.

In February 2015, Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, and promised critics of his country’s anti-corruption efforts at home, in the US, and at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that a clean-up was on the way. And he claimed Burisma was in his sights.

But Shokin’s deputy, Vitaly Kasko, told Bloomberg that the promise was empty rhetoric. According to Kasko, their office did nothing to pursue its investigation into Zlochevsky throughout 2015, and the office was ineffective at reining in corruption generally, leading him to resign in frustration.

Shokin has disputed Kasko’s narrative, but the manner in which he was running his office also concerned the US ambassador to Ukraine, who said publicly in September 2015 that the office was “subverting” the UK’s investigation.

Concern at the embassy mounted, and by 2016, officials there began suggesting the Obama administration push for the prosecutor general’s ouster. In particular, the embassy suggested that $1 billion in loan guarantees the country hoped to receive from the US in order to stay solvent should be tied to a tougher anti-corruption strategy that involved removing officials seen as blocking progress, namely Shokin.

It wasn’t just the US that wanted Shokin gone, either — many other Western European officials, including the IMF’s then-managing director Christine Lagarde, also insisted Ukraine was doing far too little about corruption.

So in March 2016, Biden says he told the Ukrainian government that their loan guarantees would be cut off unless they removed Shokin. He told the story at a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours,” Biden told his audience. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

The former vice president said after the threat, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

But though Biden may have taken credit for it, this was hardly his unique idea. “Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

The people of Ukraine wanted Shokin gone as well, and demonstrated for his removal around the time of Biden’s threat. Shortly after that demonstration, Shokin was dismissed.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -complaint

[Bryce]

Biden was stating the position of the U.S. government.

And, who pray tell sets foreign policy that becomes the "position of the US government?"

Can give a hint or two if ya like.

[Turkeytop]

Biden was stating the position of the U.S. government.

And, who pray tell sets foreign policy that becomes the "position of the US government?"

Can give a hint or two if ya like.

I can't claim any expertise as to how the U.S. is governed. But I don't expect the Vice President gets to determine foreign policy all on his own. My understanding is that you government has three co-equal branches.

[Bryce]

Biden was stating the position of the U.S. government.

And, who pray tell sets foreign policy that becomes the "position of the US government?"

Can give a hint or two if ya like.

I can't claim any expertise as to how the U.S. is governed. But I don't expect the Vice President gets to determine foreign policy all on his own. My understanding is that you government has three co-equal branches.

The Executive Branch has by far the most power when setting foreign policy. The President is the head and some will say IS the Executive Branch.

[Turkeytop]

The Executive Branch has by far the most power when setting foreign policy. The President is the head and some will say IS the Executive Branch.

So, how does that make Biden guilty of anything?

[screen glare]

Forget it, Turkeytop.

You’re arguing with folks who think it just fine that the current US president lies maniacally more than once a day - every day!
Thousands and thousands of lies! Which is why the thinking majority correctly does not trust anything about him.

That fact alone is enough to convince most normal people that it’s absurd to have Trump in any position of power. But the brainwashed of The Trump Cult are slaves to the propaganda power of Putin’s sophisticated persuasion operation, parroted by Trump on Twitter/TV, and neatly packaged by Fox News barkers: Sean, Laura, Janine, et al.

You will NEVER be able to convince them Trump endangers their country and the free world at large. They are as locked and cemented in their blind allegiance to the draft dodging/conman/mental patient as the followers were of Hitler, Jim Jones, and Father Coughlin.

As Trump stated during his campaign - he could shoot strangers on 5th avenue and nobody caught up in his charisma or salesmanship would object - or even care.

[bmw]

The Executive Branch has by far the most power when setting foreign policy. The President is the head and some will say IS the Executive Branch.

So, how does that make Biden guilty of anything?

The point being, if Biden isn't guilty, then neither is Trump.

[Turkeytop]

The Executive Branch has by far the most power when setting foreign policy. The President is the head and some will say IS the Executive Branch.

So, how does that make Biden guilty of anything?

The point being, if Biden isn't guilty, then neither is Trump.

Except that Biden was going through normal diplomatic channels. Trump fired the diplomats and used his own personal attorney.

[Bryce]

Except that Biden was going through normal diplomatic channels. Trump fired the diplomats and used his own personal attorney.

As I tried to explain before, The President sets foreign policy, NOT diplomats. Based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats, i.e. "normal channels" are the ones who are at odds with official foreign policy,

Presidents all the way back to George Washington up and through Barrack Obama have used individuals not in the State Department to carry on back channel diplomacy. Bill Clinton used Jessie Jackson for God's sake.

[Turkeytop]

Except that Biden was going through normal diplomatic channels. Trump fired the diplomats and used his own personal attorney.

As I tried to explain before, The President sets foreign policy, NOT diplomats. Based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats, i.e. "normal channels" are the ones who are at odds with official foreign policy,

Presidents all the way back to George Washington up and through Barrack Obama have used individuals not in the State Department to carry on back channel diplomacy. Bill Clinton used Jessie Jackson for God's sake.

So your nation's official foreign policy is to withhold funds that have been appropriated by congress in order to force an ally to open an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory and to gin up a phony investigation of a domestic political rival.

[Bryce]

Except that Biden was going through normal diplomatic channels. Trump fired the diplomats and used his own personal attorney.

As I tried to explain before, The President sets foreign policy, NOT diplomats. Based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats, i.e. "normal channels" are the ones who are at odds with official foreign policy,

Presidents all the way back to George Washington up and through Barrack Obama have used individuals not in the State Department to carry on back channel diplomacy. Bill Clinton used Jessie Jackson for God's sake.

So your nation's official foreign policy is to withhold funds that have been appropriated by congress in order to force an ally to open an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory and to gin up a phony investigation of a domestic political rival.

That didn't happen. As much as the media would like you to believe it. It just didn't happen.

[Turkeytop]

That didn't happen. As much as the media would like you to believe it. It just didn't happen.

All those witnesses last week were lying under oath?

[Bryce]

That didn't happen. As much as the media would like you to believe it. It just didn't happen.

All those witnesses last week were lying under oath?

I heard nary a witness say

withhold funds that have been appropriated by congress in order to force an ally to open an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory and to gin up a phony investigation of a domestic political rival.

[Turkeytop]

I heard nary a witness say

withhold funds that have been appropriated by congress in order to force an ally to open an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory and to gin up a phony investigation of a domestic political rival.

When I posted those words, I didn't purport it to be a quotation from any one witness. But, after hearing the totality of all their evidence, it's the only logical conclusion one could arrive at.