Biden audio leaked: how is this not quid pro quo?

 

Start at 52 mins

3 Likes

In

 

Also cant see shit batman

Ok now I see it

Start at 52 mins

It is qpq. The contention has always been if it was ethical or not. There's not much proof it was done to avoid having his son investigated

2 Likes

Principal Andy - 

Quid pro quo for him personally, or the US government?


Here comes the deflection! The ShareBlue crew have received their talking points.

7 Likes

The other leaked clips are worse

1 Like

As has been pointed out a lot the last few years, the current Democrat party leadership has a well worn playbook of specifically accusing the opposition of doing what they themselves are guilty of.

When they are dirty with something, they go on the offensive and accuse the administration of it.

Over and over again.

10 Likes

not a QPQ because he is a democrat

its that simple

orangemanbad

9 Likes

And not a single main stream media source will run a story on it.

 

 

I don't like how Google/YT has tried to bury this video, but I'm not convinced this is the evidence everyone thinks it is.  As I understand it, the GP was thought to be corrupt by the west, but was being protected by others in their government, and the US held the $1B up to force his removal.  We on teh OG argue Biden did it becuase his son was being investigated by the now-fired prosecuter, but I beleive it was shown his corruption was already being addressed and this was when it came to a head.  Is that an incorrect recollection of the events?  Biden's kid may have benefited from it, but the benefit was ancillary

1 Like

Principal Andy - 
AnthonyWeiner -
Principal Andy - 

Quid pro quo for him personally, or the US government?


Here comes the deflection! The ShareBlue crew have received their talking points.

Wiener, I am asking a legit question. Try to keep your derangement in check, will you?


A legit stupid question. Check your TDS first, Princess Sandy Vag.

4 Likes

Principal Andy - 
kingofpancakes -
Principal Andy - 
AnthonyWeiner -
Principal Andy - 

Quid pro quo for him personally, or the US government?


Here comes the deflection! The ShareBlue crew have received their talking points.

Wiener, I am asking a legit question. Try to keep your derangement in check, will you?


A legit stupid question. Check your TDS first, Princess Sandy Vag.

A question you are avoiding, queen flapjack. 


Fair enough. Have it. Sorry.

Principal Andy -

Quid pro quo for him personally, or the US government?

I'm not sure why so many people seem to have difficulty with this distinction.


Of course it was a quid pro quo. Has anybody ever disputed this?

False equivalence.

Some of you don’t seem to understand the difference between government policy (which policy also aligned with the IMF and EU) , and a government official who asks for a personal favor and giving something in return for that favor.

It’s really not that difficult a concept. Biden was representing US policy and there was not an iota of anything untoward regarding his son’s role in Burisma. If this was such a big deal how come nothing was done about it until Trump got into trouble and his supports started their whataboutisms.

On the other hand, Trump asked “for a favor” that an investigation be announced into his main political rival, and withheld government funds already approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into providing those funds. Those funds were only released when people started asking questions.

2 Likes

TheDorkKnight -

It is qpq. The contention has always been if it was ethical or not. There's not much proof it was done to avoid having his son investigated

Correct.


 


The people who run our govt are supposed to use our tax dollars to get things for Americans. Which is what Biden did.


 


Unlike Trump, who tried to use American tax dollars to get something for himself.

1 Like

KGB4HD -

I don't like how Google/YT has tried to bury this video, but I'm not convinced this is the evidence everyone thinks it is.  As I understand it, the GP was thought to be corrupt by the west, but was being protected by others in their government, and the US held the $1B up to force his removal.  We on teh OG argue Biden did it becuase his son was being investigated by the now-fired prosecuter, but I beleive it was shown his corruption was already being addressed and this was when it came to a head.  Is that an incorrect recollection of the events?  Biden's kid may have benefited from it, but the benefit was ancillary

Yea. There had been an investigation into Burisma ongoing since 2014 which is before hunter Biden joined the company.


 


Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor who joe Joe Biden made the Ukrainians fire, had been fuck all on investigating them though

1 Like

It is, but he's a democrat.  The media has him covered.

1 Like

LoveToChoke - False equivalence.

Some of you don’t seem to understand the difference between government policy (which policy also aligned with the IMF and EU) , and a government official who asks for a personal favor and giving something in return for that favor.

It’s really not that difficult a concept. Biden was representing US policy and there was not an iota of anything untoward regarding his son’s role in Burisma. If this was such a big deal how come nothing was done about it until Trump got into trouble and his supports started their whataboutisms.

On the other hand, Trump asked “for a favor” that an investigation be announced into his main political rival, and withheld government funds already approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into providing those funds. Those funds were only released when people started asking questions.

That's disingenuous.  Biden seemingly bragged about QPQ, and the President called for an investigation as a result.  As the head of the executive branch, that was appropriate.  The real question is the motivation for using the $1B as leverage: to cover his kid's ass, or to act on behalf of the US Govt to have a corrupt prosecutor removed.  I haven't seen that critical question answered.  Does anyone have a verifiable answer to that question?


Orcus contends in this thread that the prosecutor wasn't actively investigating Burisma, but was supposed to be.  Source? 


 


I'm no fan of creepy uncle Joe, but there's plenty of evidence he's a creep; I haven't seen any that what he bragged about is QPQ (as opposed to enforcing US policy).

KGB4HD - 
LoveToChoke - False equivalence.

Some of you don’t seem to understand the difference between government policy (which policy also aligned with the IMF and EU) , and a government official who asks for a personal favor and giving something in return for that favor.

It’s really not that difficult a concept. Biden was representing US policy and there was not an iota of anything untoward regarding his son’s role in Burisma. If this was such a big deal how come nothing was done about it until Trump got into trouble and his supports started their whataboutisms.

On the other hand, Trump asked “for a favor” that an investigation be announced into his main political rival, and withheld government funds already approved by Congress to pressure Ukraine into providing those funds. Those funds were only released when people started asking questions.

That's disingenuous.  Biden seemingly bragged about QPQ, and the President called for an investigation as a result.  As the head of the executive branch, that was appropriate.  The real question is the motivation for using the $1B as leverage: to cover his kid's ass, or to act on behalf of the US Govt to have a corrupt prosecutor removed.  I haven't seen that critical question answered.  Does anyone have a verifiable answer to that question?


Orcus contends in this thread that the prosecutor wasn't actively investigating Burisma, but was supposed to be.  Source? 


 


I'm no fan of creepy uncle Joe, but there's plenty of evidence he's a creep; I haven't seen any that what he bragged about is QPQ (as opposed to enforcing US policy).


Then do some more reading, The IMF, EU and the US had enough of this prosecutor who wasn’t going after corruption so they all pressured Ukraine to replace him with someone who would.