Repub senators find no evidence of wrongdoing regarding Biden and Ukraine policy

Nothing that changes the facts about Skokin's firing.

 

Exactly! That tells me that even three years ago, the GOP knew this was a whole lotta nuthin. The House MAGA contingent should read that report, but I won't hold my breath.

 

You're beating a dead horse.

Trump committed obstruction of justice, he's got 90 felony counts, get over it.

 

Now you are joking.

You have NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, as an nada-gawddamn thing on Joe.

We got TONS on Trump, and much of it was done in full public view.

 

Oh ffs.

https://apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9d4595ba4f3140c6bb6a3473a91f4a4c

Biden argued for Shokhin's dismissal on behalf of the Obama administration because Shokhin, who had begun to investigate Burisma at one time, had stopped that, as well as other anti-corruption investigations. He was refusing to do his job at a time when rooting out excessive corruption was essential to Ukraine’s quest to join NATO.

"Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption."

"... the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden pressed for Shokhin’s ouster."

 

You're confusing me with someone else. I never said that.

But, I believe @StillBlue (who wrote that post) was quoting you guys. You'll have to query him.

 

Not a counter argument.

 

Maybe they don't have anything that will hold up in court under cross examination and with a defense allowed to bring their own witnesses and present exculpatory evidence.

But all your links are two or more years old. And there has been a lot of stuff reported that has surfaced since. For instance the information in this piece posted this month is not a slam dunk of Biden's guilt in my opinion, but it certainly is 'evidence' omitted from earlier media accounts.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/25/biden-bribes-ukraine-corruption-shokin-burisma/

 

Really?

In that case, why is the right still bleating about Hunter's stuff that happened 8-10 years ago?

 

Such as?

And puhleeze don't reply with copies of emails that may or may not have included a Joe Biden alias in the recipient list. That, and the rest of the right's so-called "evidence," is nothing but innuendo and conjecture.

 

Not interested in convincing you.

 

I’m not sure which part of using outdated articles to validate current views makes sense to you. But, if you let us know why you think this makes sense we can probably help correct you as well.

 

Regarding:
1. Please provide a link.
2. Ditto.
3. Credible? In whose opinion?
4. Again, credibility? Sounds like hearsay, not evidence.
5. Prove that any of those email recipients are or were Joe Biden.

 

Then you show zero credibility on this issue.

 

Ohhh no , what shall i do!?!?! Sleep monster doesnt think im credible!

 

Both? Perhaps the squabbling and mud are due to Joe not being guilty.

 

Regarding:
1. No.

If you are unaware of the suspicious banking reports and incapable of finding out about them there doesn’t seem to be much progress that can be had here.

 

Jordan Klepper of The Daily Show had the best of those interviews!

 

No, he didn't. That was all Obama. Do you think Joe had autonomy in foreign relations?

 

I've yet to see any proof against Biden, just a lot of conjecture and conspiracy theories. Email pseudonyms? Shell corporations? All unsubstantiated, not even circumstantial, much less hard evidence.

In Trump's case, there are the documents, as well as his own voice on infamous phone calls. There are dozens of witnesses, all corroborating each other as testified in front of grand juries. Etc etc etc and so on, all solidly substantiated.

 

I've yet to see any proof against Biden, just a lot of conjecture and conspiracy theories. Email pseudonyms? Shell corporations? All unsubstantiated, not even circumstantial, much less hard evidence.

In Trump's case, there are the documents, as well as his own voice on infamous phone calls. There are dozens of witnesses, all corroborating each other as testified in front of grand juries. Etc etc etc and so on, all solidly substantiated.

I'm not a Biden fan, he wasn't even my second choice in the 2020 primaries, but I do like facts, and there are none, so far, about Joe Biden having committed any crime.

 

All the articles listed in the OP were all in 2020 with Mitch McConnell as the Majority Leader at that time. Thus, it was controlled by the GOP 51-49 or 50-50. Can't remember exactly.

 

If you read the OP, the author was fully aware of the date. But at the time of the reporting, Biden had already won the presidential race and was the presumptive office holder for President. And this is the exact same thing that the GOP has been using, not mentioning the Senate's report, and will be used as the primary evidence of any impeachment article in the House by Democratic Representatives in which a dozen or so Republicans, along with all the Democrats will null and void any articles of impeachment.

The underlying theme of the OP is really that any impeachment article over Ukraine is not going to work in the House because of this report by Senate Republicans.

Looking further, the other articles of impeachment may be the border, but no crimes have been committed. Yes, the GOP is upset with policy, but malfeasance is not a requirement for impeachment per Article 2, only crimes and certain misdemeanors are.

 

Yeah, three years ago. Lots of evidence has come forth since then... LMAO

 

See post #51.