>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.
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.