Here's an attempt to explain it away that has his statement in it.

The guy was fired for "not investigating corruption".

No, he was fired for investigating the wrong corruption.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

This is very old news from back when they impeached Trump.

NewsMax and Fox have played it many times. Kind of hard to refute it. Main stream media has never played it. Different standards apply with them.

I have posted that video and a longer version on Trapperman over a half dozen times.

Keith

Would it matter? If it came down to Trump or Biden, you'd still vote Biden.

Watching the video is like going thru the line to sample some pulled pork. That is just the endgame. The magic of the story is what happened to that pork butt the 24 hours before it became pulled pork. All the work that came before.

So in the Hunter story, way before all that, oil company knows it is being investigated for corruption puts Hunter on board.......a job he had no experience in or qualifications for...except experience as the bag man for his corrupt father...and pays him $80,000 per month. Then it is agreed to that if prosecutor gets fired, hunter and the big guy both get $5M each. They worked on it for a few months prior to that video coming out. That was just the endgame.

So one story cooked up to cover this is firing prosecutor was 'official" government policy. If so, then was it "official" government policy to take bribes and profit from those actions?

I'd like to know what the crime family did for China to receive multi millions.

Is he anti gun enough to ban bump stocks?

So I take it there is no transcript.

Jim

Yes, and more. But you already know that.

Notice that I declined your invitation to help you stir the pot.

Jim

Why doesn't someone post Biden's words?

Biden leveraged the loan guarantees to get a corrupt prosecutor fired, not to help his son. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/

Posting that video while claiming it says something it doesn't? Nah, no one here would do that.

Jim

Well of course you did. A straight answer would just be silly.

Yes, it would be kind of silly, considering how many times straight answers have got me accused of stirring the pot.

Jim

Maybe when you all are criminals for owning guns your hearing and reading comprehension will improve. lol

James, that article was 2020, so not accurate. Archer said under oath that Burisma was done if Joe hadn't fired that prosecutor. But facts don't matter when it comes to Dems.

Its accurate enough if you have common sense.

Here's the very first sentence of it.


"It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians."


He leveraged the firing of the guy investigating Burisma, correct?

The said reason he was fired is because he wasn't "pursuing corruption", correct?

Then tell me what is more corrupt than a company bribing the second most powerful (politician) man in the world at that time.

That is the definition of corruption!

Believing the twist by a left wing liberal paper like USA today is a real stretch.

Quid pro quo. Can't think of a better example.

Come on folks. Everyone knows that Sniffy and Hunter only talked about the weather during those business meeting interrupting phone calls at Burisma and the other companies where the multi talented Hinter sat on the boards of .

Anyone wants to buy a bridge ??

What is hard to fathom is even after all the evidence, the Biden cult followers still would vote for him.