(09-25-2019, 05:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(09-25-2019, 04:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Joe wanted the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and was doing nothing about the corruption in the Ukraine.  This was the opinion of the entire international community and the IMF.  Joe Biden wasn't the only one who wanted him fired.  Everybody wanted him fired.  

As of yet, there is no evidence that Joe Biden broke US or Ukrainian law.

Thats a lie.  The structure of the payments to hunter biden, being routed through three or four countries, is in and of itself probable cause of intent to evade detection/ money laundering and warrants further investigation.  Also, his appointment to the board of directors was devoid any reciprical economic value, he had no experience in the country, energy sector, and was just discharged based on a drug offense.  Thats a few days after his father coordinated the delivery of 1.8 billion dollars to a bank owned by his new employer for the benefit of that employers economic sector.  Further in bidens public comments he said he didnt know his son was under investigation, open source reporting demonstrates that to be a lie.  Lying about material facts in that matter is probable cause to draw a negative inference that it did have some bearing on his decision.  

As for the prosecutor, youre right.  The world was upset particularly because to that point he had protected companies like burisma.  A conpany owned by a ukranian oligarch so onerous thathe was barred from entry into the united states and had 23 million in assets frozen by the british government.  They were only unfrozen becsuse the prosecutor refused to cooperate with the british inquiry so lacking evidence, the brits had to drop the case.  If joe was so concerned about the prosecutor protecting companies like burisma, why the hell did he coordinate depositing 1.8 billion dollars in a bank owned by the same oligarch for the benefit of his company?

In short, if you want to be reductive, its usually the family that actually pockets money thats persuing personal gain.

---