No matter what you believe, what we can say is that there's literally no evidence for this. Firstly, there's no evidence that Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion dollars- which frankly, is a big hole in such an outrageous claim. Given that this is an extreme claim which not only has no factual basis, but actually has been investigated and found not to have a factual basis, it is a lie.
You can make an argument that there was some issue around holding up a loan guarantee, to the ukrainian state from the US in return for pursuing US foreign policy objectives, but the fact is that the relationship between the details of that discussion, and what is actually claimed in Sorkin's example is non-existent.
>2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing.
There is a difference between using state apparatus to pursue US foreign policy objectives, and using state apparatus (and questionable private entities) to pursue US domestic political objectives. A fact you either don't understand or are deliberately glossing over to try and score political points.
>(Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising).
Again, you can make claims like these if you want, but if you have no evidence to support your claim and the opposition to your point of view can bring up obvious facts to show you're lying, then I'm afraid, we all have to just call you a liar and move on. Biden has raised $16m in the last quarter, so your claim is factually wrong. It's also a conspiracy theory - that somehow Joe Biden is pretending to run a campaign.... to what? Like, you've just descended into nonsense.
>Nobody claims that they were
Your quote from the article.
>"Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son."
So, am I to understand that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars despite Joe Biden not having a billion dollars and the Ukrainian attorney general never having had a billion dollars.
> he had the gall to brag about it on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY.
You post an editted clip out of context, about the level of honesty of Nancy Pelosi's speech being slowed down to make her sound drunk. In return I'll give you a link to a trusted fact checking site showing the full clip and a debunking of your claim. >https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukr...
That's because your claim is a lie.
> It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find)
What does this have to do with the specific lie we're talking about? Let's be clear about this: If you think there's a scandal about Hunter Biden being appointed to a company you were welcome to make that argument before you came out with a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden, but now you've started on crazy lies about Joe Biden's time as VP you've lost the credibility to talk about this.
>I didn't read the rest of your message.
And for everyone reading this, this is the level of intellectual honesty we've come to expect from people pushing this conspiracy theory. We get it, Hunter Biden is the new "But her emails!", but unfortunately, we all lived through "but her emails!" so we're not going to take this bullshit seriously anymore.
The difference is, Biden was stating the official position of the U.S. government, with respect to Shokin slow walking corruption prosecutions. All the U.S. allies were saying the same thing about Shokin. He should have been prosecuting companies like Burisma, the company Hunter Biden sat on the board for. But he say on that board to years after the alleged wrongdoing by Burisma.
Per usual, Trump claims conspiracies the exact opposite of the truth. Whether he knows he's lying, or is confabulating, is an open question.
The bribery has already been admitted in plain sight, by Trump, by Guiliani, by Mulvaney. And it is bribery, Trump wanted headlines "Ukraine investigates Bidens!" however phony, to impugn the credibility of Joe Biden, whole holding up aid to get it. He literally wants Ukraine to engage in corruption to benefit his campaign. It's unquestionably impeachable bribery. It's also a crime:
18 USC ยง601, it is a crime to directly or indirectly attempt to get someone contribute something of value to benefit a political candidate by threatening the denial of any benefit made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.
Success isn't required by the statue. Just like obstruction of justice laws, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime.
The WH released "memo" about the Trump Zelensky phone call, the whistleblower statement, the corroborating witnesses including Alexander Vindman are consistent with each other, and are evidence of consciousness of guilt by the White House.
It's hilariously transparent to a turnip Trump can only look decent by conning people into thinking his enemies are just as bad. Maybe you like the corrupt person he is, or maybe you lack the character assessment skill to recognize it.
My whataboutism? In NYC he had been considered hot garbage for decades after multiple bankruptcies leaving small businesses holding the bag for his incompetency. This is why he turned to the shadiest people in the world to make money. There's a reason he fights so hard to keep his taxes secret. NYC folks voted against him 10:1. There, he's been considered a D-minus tabloid trash celebrity for a very long time, him as president was a long running hilarious joke to New Yorkers, until it happenened. Hardly everyone loved him. Most people didn't, per the polling and the total vote count.