winsor 186 #76 December 19, 2023 (edited) This came from The Hill, and is consistent with the accounts of both both supporters and detractors. Hopefully it posts, I can't cut and paste it conveniently on my phone. HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD067.pdf Edited December 19, 2023 by winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #77 December 19, 2023 4 hours ago, winsor said: Biden may well have had brilliant insight and used extraordinary leverage to seek justice at a very granular level. Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened. No, that’s not what happened. Firing Viktor Shokin was a policy goal of a large international coalition of suppliers of aid to Ukraine. It also wasn’t an isolated incident - reducing corruption across all areas of Ukrainian government was one of the absolute priorities of the plan to build Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Joe Biden was the messenger not the architect of this particular policy goal. You’re right about one thing - you are just parroting the conspiracy theorists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #78 December 19, 2023 6 hours ago, jakee said: ...You’re right about one thing - you are just parroting the conspiracy theorists. I do wish people would stop calling them conspiracy theories. A scientific theory is a tested, demonstrated, clearly accurate and truthful explanation for observed phenomenon. Relativity, evolution, gravity (still needs work), that sort of thing. The 'Biden Crime Family' isn't a theory. It's a conspiracy FANTASY. Same as "fake moon landing", "Illuminati controls the whole world", "9/11 truthers" and a host of others that are blatant bullshit. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #79 December 19, 2023 13 hours ago, winsor said: This came from The Hill, and is consistent with the accounts of both both supporters and detractors. Hopefully it posts, I can't cut and paste it conveniently on my phone. HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD067.pdf 468.84 kB · 5 downloads An opinion piece in The Hill is your "evidence?" As an opinion piece tends to be it is a little heavy on conjecture, but at least did mention that Shokin was generally disliked for not doing enough to fight against corruption. His commentary, without backing of any evidence, that in this case though he was really, really close to actually doing something rings a little hollow don't you think? As has been pointed out a few times, removing Shokin was a policy goal even from camps not "controlled" by Biden and likely prior to Hunter getting a "job" on the board. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
