Current Events > Ukraine prosecutor to review company tied to Hunter Biden

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ukraines top legal official said Friday that his office would review a probe into the owner of a natural-gas company linked to former Vice President Joe Bidens son.

Ruslan Ryaboshapka, Ukraines general prosecutor, said during a press conference that the review is part of a wider audit of at least 15 high-profile past investigations that were closed or dismissed by his predecessors.

The announcement Friday comes as an impeachment inquiry over President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine consumes Washington. But Ryaboshapka said the decision to review the cases was not specifically related to the time Hunter Biden spent on the board of Burisma, Ukraines largest private natural-gas firm, or allegations from the Trump administration that Joe Biden improperly applied pressure on Ukraine to have an investigation into Burisma halted.

The allegations from Trump and his lawyer Rudolph Giuliani have played a key role in the impeachment inquiry into Trump by Democratic lawmakers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/10/04/ukraine-official-review-probe-tied-joe-bidens-son-hunter/3862796002/
---

Smart by Ukraine.

They need to play ball to get that 500 mil that Trump froze.

Even if the impeachment goes through it won't effect Trump's presidency so the extortion is still powerful
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Smart by Ukraine.

They need to play ball to get that 500 mil that Trump froze.

Even if the impeachment goes through it won't effect Trump's presidency so the extortion is still powerful

Didnt that money already get released?
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Smart by Ukraine.

They need to play ball to get that 500 mil that Trump froze.

Even if the impeachment goes through it won't effect Trump's presidency so the extortion is still powerful

Didnt that money already get released?

In theory. But then it was "Delayed" without knowing how much would make it to Ukraine by the end of 2019 until Ukraine commited into digging dirt on Trump's rivals, now they have suddenly the amount is expected to be 90%

Funny thing that.Like 678 bizzare unexplained coincidences in a row... It's almost like it's being orchestrated
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Smart by Ukraine.

They need to play ball to get that 500 mil that Trump froze.

Even if the impeachment goes through it won't effect Trump's presidency so the extortion is still powerful

Didnt that money already get released?

In theory. But then it was "Delayed" without knowing how much would make it to Ukraine by the end of 2019 until Ukraine commited into digging dirt on Trump's rivals, now they have suddenly the amount is expected to be 90%

Funny thing that.Like 678 bizzare unexplained coincidences in a row... It's almost like it's being orchestrated

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.
---

Doesn't matter what they find. No one will believe it

---

What are they even looking for, though?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

What are they even looking for, though?

Military aid

---

This makes Trump look worse because it will seem like he actually had an influence on them
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

What are they even looking for, though?

Burisma. A gas company that was huge in the Ukraine and Joe Biden's son was on the board.

The company was accused of being corrupt and doing shady shit.

Biden left the board and an investigation found no wrong doing.

Trump is stirring the pot making claims that the Bidens forced the investigation to close early and lie saying the bidens are innocent. So he is extorting Ukraine to reopen the investigation in an attempt to drag Bidens name through the mud in 2020.

A whistleblower heard Trump doing this (and possibly more, only the phone call part of his complaint is public) and told everyone.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Military aid

Actually laughed out loud for that.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.

For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.
---

If Biden goes down Dems win. He is the worst person to go agianst Trump.
---

creativerealms posted...

If Biden goes down Dems win. He is the worst person to go agianst Trump.

Hes like the most popular candidate3
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.

For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.

But you are? You don't respond to the rest of his points?
Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?

Good it's time to end the corruption.

Ruvan22 posted...

Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?

To top it off, even if Trump did say that now, he didn't say that at the time to the people he told to freeze the funds. No explanation was given.

So it's a weak defense from the get go.

It's also suspcious as fuck ignoring that to go "Oh he was just concerned about Russia so he stopped payments at the same time he told them to through Rudy begin an investigation into Biden as a "Favor" and the moment they did the funds were released and the delayed shortened. Then he aggressively tried to cover all traces of these acts and stop word from getting out that he did any of it."

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Even if you love Trump and his policies, this is indefensible.

I hate Biden but Trump is commiting treason and bribery/extortion here.
---

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.

For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.

But you are? You don't respond to the rest of his points?
Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?

I responded to his points in the other topic, and I responded to his points in this topic.

there is another possible explanation for the temporary suspension of aid. At the time, Ukraine was transitioning to a new, democratically-elected government and a review of the aid may have been justified under such circumstances.

https://www.apnews.com/94fdeaddc6b34c02b97278674b87541e

President Trump on Wednesday linked his decision to delay U.S. military aid to Ukraine to concerns about high levels of corruption in that country, and especially to frustration that the Europeans werent doing more to assist their neighbor, which serves as a bulwark between Europe and Russia

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/trump-says-he-held-ukraine-aid-over-concerns-about-corruption.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.

For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.

But you are? You don't respond to the rest of his points?
Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?

I responded to his points in the other topic, and I responded to his points in this topic.

there is another possible explanation for the temporary suspension of aid. At the time, Ukraine was transitioning to a new, democratically-elected government and a review of the aid may have been justified under such circumstances.

https://www.apnews.com/94fdeaddc6b34c02b97278674b87541e

President Trump on Wednesday linked his decision to delay U.S. military aid to Ukraine to concerns about high levels of corruption in that country, and especially to frustration that the Europeans werent doing more to assist their neighbor, which serves as a bulwark between Europe and Russia

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/trump-says-he-held-ukraine-aid-over-concerns-about-corruption.

As UR has explained better than I have, Trump stating this PAST Wednesday is shady after the whole questioning of the timelines came out. *IF* he had stated this back when suspending the aid (or even after), it would fits *your* narrative

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.

For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.

But you are? You don't respond to the rest of his points?
Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?

I responded to his points in the other topic, and I responded to his points in this topic.

there is another possible explanation for the temporary suspension of aid. At the time, Ukraine was transitioning to a new, democratically-elected government and a review of the aid may have been justified under such circumstances.

https://www.apnews.com/94fdeaddc6b34c02b97278674b87541e

President Trump on Wednesday linked his decision to delay U.S. military aid to Ukraine to concerns about high levels of corruption in that country, and especially to frustration that the Europeans werent doing more to assist their neighbor, which serves as a bulwark between Europe and Russia

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/trump-says-he-held-ukraine-aid-over-concerns-about-corruption.

As UR has explained better than I have, Trump stating this PAST Wednesday is shady after the whole questioning of the timelines came out. *IF* he had stated this back when suspending the aid (or even after), it would fits *your* narrative

He said it to certain staff when he made the decision. Either way, suspicions are irrelevant. Back them up with proof and hard facts.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Not really, if you're sending aid to someone you need to make sure the country and its leaders aren't corrupt. Small delays shouldn't be suspicious.

You did this in the other topic too.

You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)"

And it's bizarre.

In this case it's not even true. Both the funds being frozen without reason and the funds suddenly being delayed the moment they were unfrozen are suspicious as fuck by themselves.

They are not reflected in the US relations with any other nation. There are plenty of nations the US sends aid too that are unquestionably corrupt. Such as Saudi Arabia for example.

And the president never gave reason for why the funds were frozen or delayed in the first place, while overruling the other 2 branches of government to do so.

That's suspicious before the Rudy/Barr/Phone Call/Whistleblower shit.

For one, I'm not picking 1 thing and ignoring the rest. Not sure why you'd just make up a blatant lie. And there is reason to delay the funds. Trump already explained it. He was investigating corruption and making sure the country isnt supporting Russia. You simply don't like that answer.

But you are? You don't respond to the rest of his points?
Also, where did Trump say "I'm delaying it to make Ukraine isn't supporting Russia"?

I responded to his points in the other topic, and I responded to his points in this topic.

there is another possible explanation for the temporary suspension of aid. At the time, Ukraine was transitioning to a new, democratically-elected government and a review of the aid may have been justified under such circumstances.

https://www.apnews.com/94fdeaddc6b34c02b97278674b87541e

President Trump on Wednesday linked his decision to delay U.S. military aid to Ukraine to concerns about high levels of corruption in that country, and especially to frustration that the Europeans werent doing more to assist their neighbor, which serves as a bulwark between Europe and Russia

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/trump-says-he-held-ukraine-aid-over-concerns-about-corruption.

As UR has explained better than I have, Trump stating this PAST Wednesday is shady after the whole questioning of the timelines came out. *IF* he had stated this back when suspending the aid (or even after), it would fits *your* narrative

He said it to certain staff when he made the decision. Either way, suspicions are irrelevant. Back them up with proof and hard facts.

Exactly which staff did he say that to?
And I agree.. Trump's suspicions about Biden and son are irrelevant, he should back them up with proof and facts

Tik tok Biden and dems? I thought this was about Trump
---

Ruvan22 posted...

Exactly which staff did he say that to?

Go google it. Thats what I did and I don't feel like doing it again.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Doesn't matter what they find. No one will believe it

@Doom_Art I wish you were right.

The MAGAns and the "completely not racist and totally not conservative voters who definitely voted for obama twice but voted for trump because of economics" will bask on this because they WANT to, just like they were (and still ae) "very worried" about Hillary's emails but don't give a shit about 45 hiding his communications in a secret server.

They will insist that whatver Biden's son did is TERRIBLE, while ignoring all the shady shit going on with ivanka's patents and china stuff.

Who posted
---

@creativerealms posted...

If Biden goes down Dems win. He is the worst person to go agianst Trump.

LMAO!!!!

Who is better than Joe? :

- the old socialist man with the heart attack
- the non-hetero guy (NOTHING wrong with that, but your typical GOP voter doesn't like that) who was caught on tape telling african-american voters "I am not asking you for your vote"
- the guy who couldn't even beat Ted "Zodiac Killer" Cruz (even though Cruz is hispanic, which is something the typical GOP voter doesn't like) and who said "we're coming for your guns!" (yeah GOP voters will love that)
- The slightly younger female version of Bernie who allowed herself to be dragged by Donnie into the whole "pocahontas" thing. Does she also use the "socialist" moniker like Bernie and AOC do? Because if she does LMAO, yeah the GOP voters will love that too.

^

A lot of that is based around the misguided belief that the Dems should care what the GOP base or Trump supporters want.

---

I mean call it a controversial opinion, but I think Democratic voters ought to go with what they want and what the Democratic base wants.

---

Doom_Art posted...

^

A lot of that is based around the misguided belief that the Dems should care what the GOP base or Trump supporters want.

So you're saying there are no swing voters?

Doom_Art posted...

I mean call it a controversial opinion, but I think Democratic voters ought to go with what they want and what the Democratic base wants.

I mean you clean house in NY, CA, OR, WA, win MD, DC, MAYBE VA. Then what?

Shuto-uke posted...

I mean you clean house in NY, CA, OR, WA, win MD, DC, MAYBE VA. Then what?

you're suggesting that those states are the only places in the country where Democrats live?


---

Doom_Art posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

I mean you clean house in NY, CA, OR, WA, win MD, DC, MAYBE VA. Then what?

you're suggesting that those states are the only places in the country where Democrats live?

WOW.

No, I am sure democrat voters are everywhere.

If you really want to think that someone running on "medicare for all" and calling him/herself "democratic socialist" will win TX, AR, MT, etc etc... I don't know what to say

Pelosi's son is also tied to this ! Just wait for it to all come out. The damage control will be insane
---

Who said anything about winning Texas, Arizona, and Montana?

---

Doom_Art posted...

Who said anything about winning Texas, Arizona, and Montana?

Who said anything about the USA? I thought we were talking about Brexit?

no, come on dude, we usually have great back-and-forths and agree on most things, why are we playing gotcha here? You know what my point is and I know what yours is

Shuto-uke posted...

no, come on dude, we usually have great back-and-forths and agree on most things, why are we playing gotcha here? You know what my point is and I know what yours is

Democrats won two elections back to back by focusing on their traditional base and turning them out to vote.

Courting swing voters and GOP "moderates" is what Clinton tried

Build bridges where you can and turn out the base.

---

This topic wouldnt feel right until Shockmonkey posted an image of a sea creature. I guess we can all go home now.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

no, come on dude, we usually have great back-and-forths and agree on most things, why are we playing gotcha here? You know what my point is and I know what yours is

Democrats won two elections back to back by focusing on their traditional base and turning them out to vote.

Courting swing voters and GOP "moderates" is what Clinton tried

Build bridges where you can and turn out the base.

Obama was basically a once-in-a-generation thing due to his sheer class and charisma, and he was aided by the fact that Sarah Palin "could see Russia from her home" so that makes her a foreign policy expert, and other stupidity like that.

After he won, all of the racists that were sort of dormant went bat shit crazy and couldn't accept a black man in the White House. Radio hosts went full REEEEEEE and said stuff like "I hope he fails!", Moscow Mitch said his goal in life was to make him a 1 term president, and the Tea Party was created. Hate crime numbers spiked. This all led to MAGA.

People have changed man. We had Charlottesville and then some other rallies like that. People do and say racist shit on camera like never before. Laura Ingraham throws "totally not nazi" salutes at the RNC, etc etc.

All previous political wisdom has been thrown out of the window. People use to rage over Obama's tan suit or because he asked for Dijon mustard. Now 45 asks China to go after Biden ON CAMERA and hsi party and base stands by him... politics are team sports now.

karlpilkington4 posted...

This topic wouldnt feel right until Shockmonkey posted an image of a sea creature. I guess we can all go home now.

Yea he never adds anything to any conversation :/

Shuto-uke posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

This topic wouldnt feel right until Shockmonkey posted an image of a sea creature. I guess we can all go home now.

Yea he never adds anything to any conversation :/

We might not agree on much more, but atleast this is something.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

This topic wouldnt feel right until Shockmonkey posted an image of a sea creature. I guess we can all go home now.

Yea he never adds anything to any conversation :/

We might not agree on much more, but atleast this is something.

Here's something we agree on, my dude: You're 10000000X (at least) a better poster and smarter than he is, LOL.

why y'all being mean to shock

---

Doom_Art posted...

why y'all being mean to shock

I don't know, maybe the endless harassment he has subjected me to for months, the ganging on me he does on the warned general, the spreadhsheets he keeps about me, or his radical views on life?

shockthemonkey posted...

Doom_Art posted...

why y'all being mean to shock

Its Hypno and ROD, and they dont like being Hypno and ROD

Where is ROD?

Shuto-uke posted...

I mean you clean house in NY, CA, OR, WA, win MD, DC, MAYBE VA. Then what?

then you add the entire northeast+HI which are strongholds for dems, and then you need to win states which have clearly become more democratic than not--CO, WI, MI, MN, NM--and then you need one of ohio, PA, or florida--and you win

the problem in those states last time was turnout, and a candidate the base is excited to vote for will make them show up there.

Shuto-uke posted...

politics are team sports now.

more the reason to play team sports

warren doesn't call herself a socialist, she's charismatic, empathetic, popular, and despite her foolishness with the native american smear--which originated as a lie about her pre-politics career--she's made quite clear what kind of leader she wants to be.

warren has all of obama's smarts (frankly she's likely responsible for a lot of them), all of obama's empathy, and a solid 50% of his charisma.
---

Sackgurl posted...

then you add the entire northeast+HI which are strongholds for dems, and then you need to win states which have clearly become more democratic than not--CO, WI, MI, MN, NM--and then you need one of ohio, PA, or florida--and you win

the problem in those states last time was turnout, and a candidate the base is excited to vote for will make them show up there.

the GOP has figured out this turnout thing.

Voter ID laws, voter intimidation, closing DMV offices mysteriously before elections, having 1 or 2 voting machines for HUGE urban voting districts (which results in very long lines) in REMOTE areas, the machines "start malfunctioning", harassing people who get others to register to vote or who try to give people a ride to the booth....