NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[honorentheos]

.

Did you watch the French documentary series on this, would you like to go through it together? Again it is very well supported by documents and references. In fairness give me a link/s to what you are using a your “proof text/s”

You mean the Russian propoganda by the RT affiliated French blogger? We've been over this. Two years ago.

[Markk]

.

Did you watch the French documentary series on this, would you like to go through it together? Again it is very well supported by documents and references. In fairness give me a link/s to what you are using a your “proof text/s”

You mean the Russian propoganda by the RT affiliated French blogger? We've been over this. Two years ago.

That’s a cop out and you know it, and a way to not address what is in the documentary.

[Markk]

Huh…He received what he wanted, Shokin was fired. There is video and audio evidence of this, which, I already pasted and linked. The prosecutor being fired was the demand, the billon dollars in aid was the reward. I wouldn’t try to make this more than it is…but I’ll listen.

That's not a quid pro quo.

Well, I and many would certainly did agree. And is just more “smoke” Honor.

[honorentheos]

You mean the Russian propoganda by the RT affiliated French blogger? We've been over this. Two years ago.

That’s a cop out and you know it, and a way to not address what is in the documentary.

It's not a cop out so much as we went over that two years ago. It's where the nipple piercing bet originated. I don't see how you mean to engage information that you resurrected when you refused then to accept any evidence of Russian propoganda or false statements. What's changed? Oh, we know more about the emails and they show Joe Biden wasn't part of Hunters business deals so much as Hunter was trading nf on his dad's name. But you won't accept that, either. So, what's changed in two years? You think people are finally acknowledging the laptop was real? We've been over that and what the real concern was in 2020. But you don't accept that, either.

What did I say back near the beginning of this thread?

viewtopic.php?p=2775480#p2775480

You keep confusing your information being outdated with people ignoring it.

[honorentheos]

That's not a quid pro quo.

Well, I and many would certainly did agree. And is just more “smoke” Honor.

Then you and "many" don't understand what is meant by a quid pro quo.

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

"the pardon was a quid pro quo for their help in releasing hostages".

[Markk]

That’s a cop out and you know it, and a way to not address what is in the documentary.

It's not a cop out so much as we went over that two years ago. It's where the nipple piercing bet originated. I don't see how you mean to engage information that you resurrected when you refused then to accept any evidence of Russian propoganda or false statements. What's changed? Oh, we know more about the emails and they show Joe Biden wasn't part of Hunters business deals so much as Hunter was trading nf on his dad's name. But you won't accept that, either. So, what's changed in two years? You think people are finally acknowledging the laptop was real? We've been over that and what the real concern was in 2020. But you don't accept that, either.

What did I say back near the beginning of this thread?

viewtopic.php?p=2775480#p2775480

You keep confusing your information being outdated with people ignoring it.

The documentary has valuable information, and is basically backed up with “video endnotes.” There is no Russian propaganda in the documentary…and even if there was please show me where.In fact a French author went after the film maker and accused him of that very same thing…and it went to court and it was found the person that went after him was dead wrong…and was given a suspended sentence, and was ordered to strike her remarks out of any future printings of her book.

lets go through the doc, and I am sure there are parts I would side with you on, but there are also parts that paint a clear pattern that I am trying to convey…what are you afraid of? And if it is propaganda like you assert, it should be quite easy to show me that.

In regards to what’s changed…not much…but one thing even if little.a few here are admitting that Hunter Biden is a mess to a much larger degree than a few years ago. What hasn’t changed is it is impossible to get you guys to enter into anything beyond your comfort zone.

[Markk]

Well, I and many would certainly did agree. And is just more “smoke” Honor.

Then you and "many" don't understand what is meant by a quid pro quo.

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

"the pardon was a quid pro quo for their help in releasing hostages".

Well, telling a country that if they do not fire a prosecutor of that country that is in charge of rooting out corruption, while his son is employed by a gangster that is deep in corruption. Protecting his son…would certainly Qualify with your definition.

Also the definition is a litter deeper than your one little example, but you know that.

[honorentheos]

There is no Russian propaganda in the documentary…and even if there was please show me where.In fact a French author went after the film maker and accused him of that very same thing…and it went to court and it was found the person that went after him was dead wrong…and was given a suspended sentence, and was ordered to strike her remarks out of any future printings of her book.

Again, not what happened. It seems you just paraphrased his wiki page. That accusation you mention above was based on a book published in 2016 about Russian influence in media in France where the blogger and creator of the so-called documentary was identified back then as one of a number of persons putting out soft pro-Russia propoganda. The attorney that represented the blogger as well as five others was also the attorney for RT in France. As a French articled noted, "All of them are quoted in Vaissié's book and belong, according to her, to a "network in the sociological sense of the term" – as people sharing common opinions that "read and quote each other" – support and relay in France the political and ideological positions of the Kremlin."

So the accusation and lawsuit were long before this documentary nor was it about it. The large criticism that seemed prevalent is that the author had not investigated and verified her claims beyond drawing conclusions. Which is essentially what people on the internet do all the time but journalists are held to a higher standard (see, for example, why most major news outlets did not run with the story about Hunter Biden's lap top). The court ruling you note in your wiki summary was for the claim Berruyer had a ""desire to distort the facts, to attack or to deceive, at least with regard to Russian-Ukrainian issues" which was determined to be defamatory in 2019, with all other claims dismissed.

So, after this Berruyer makes a documentary that is released through Constium News and boosted the many different RT language outlets in 2020 pushing Russian interests with regard to Russian-Ukrainian issues. Today you can browse Olivier's Twitter and see him criticize any moves by France to engage in aggression against Russian vis-a-vis Ukraine, arguing for a nationalist, isolationist and communist France. Any mention on his blog about RT is to decry censorship, claiming it is motived by anti-competition motives among major French news outlets who are all conspiring to keep truth from the common French people...like our Russia-friendly Fox News, OAN, and other similar networks claim.

So. Yeah.

[honorentheos]

Then you and "many" don't understand what is meant by a quid pro quo.

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

"the pardon was a quid pro quo for their help in releasing hostages".

Well, telling a country that if they do not fire a prosecutor of that country that is in charge of rooting out corruption, while his son is employed by a gangster that is deep in corruption. Protecting his son…would certainly Qualify with your definition.

Also the definition is a litter deeper than your one little example, but you know that.

See how sloppy you are with this sort of thing? You are like a person in a kitchen who handles raw chicken, picks up salad in their hands and scatters it on plates, licks their finger after dipping it the sauce, and then wipes their hand on a towel. You claimed, "The fact is JB basically blackmailed, through a quid quo pro, a prosecutor that was going after MZ…there is more than enough evidence that supports that."

So what actual facts are in this claim? Biden certainly told the President of Ukraine he needed to "fire a prosecutor" and that prosecutor was responsible for "rooting out corruption". Blackmail is supposition and you misidentify who you intend to be the target of the claimed blackmail. Biden's son was employed by Burisma and it wouldn't be a stretch to call Mykola Zlochevsky a gangster of sorts. Not a hard fact, but the kind of color that isn't distorting facts anyway. But protecting (Biden's) son? That being the "quo" in the claimed quid pro quo makes it critical to prove. And you don't have facts to show that Biden received protection for his son through the removal of Shokin. All the evidence contradicts this claim in that the EU, the US government, and the Ukrainian people all saw Shokin as being part of the corruption problem rather than helping fight it. Your evidence is it just seems like common sense to you because clear the Bidens are rotten to the corez and Russian media claims Shokin was really, honestly, for sure going after Burisma but Biden saw him as a threat and had him removed.

You don't know what a quid pro quo is, apparently, and you don't know what makes something a fact, either.

[Markk]

Again you are just saying I don’t understand, there fore there is not evidence, yet you refuse to look at the “evidence” I want to present and discuss. I counter the claim I did not know, with you are closed minded and refuse to even discuss or review data and points I try to make.

This is interesting, a little back drop before I get to my point that the documentary discusses. Yuriy Lutsenko, the key figure in the Trump impeachment and whom the Trump Quid Quo Pro is centered around. This is who Rudy meet with several times. Trump even tried to get him rehired, I suppose for leverage against Biden, hoping to get him to spill some beans, but the Current Ukrainian president VZ said no.

He has a deep history of corruption, he was in prison for corruption, for a few years before being pardoned by Ukrainian leaders tied to corruption (LOL who isn’t). Anyways after Biden’s quid quo pro… Lutsenko was, despite not being a lawyer or any experience as a “attorney general” he was named the new prosecutor general of the Ukraine replacing Shokin. We have to assume this was okay by the Obama Administartion given Joe’s demands.

There is a lot about this in the documentary, but a couple of points are 1sts…Shokin was called out of retirement after, from what I read, a respected career in thier “justice department”. Yuriy Lutsenko (YL) had no experience and served time for being corrupt. There is a lot of discussion about this in the documentary.

2nd, To YL’s credit, the department found that Burisma had cheated the Ukrainiann Goverment out of 40 million is taxes. But, instead of prosecuting them as would happen in the US, Ukrainian law just demands they pay it back. But, YL made a deal with Burisma and they only had to pay back 7 million of the 40 million, which reaks of kick backs, and pissed off goverment leaders. The documentary goes in to his and his wife’s personal wealth and holding that can not be supported on a general prosicutors salary. Keep in mind YL was in very deep with the then Ukrainiaian President, that was known for corruption and who Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the current president and National Hero, ran against and replaced on a non corruption ticket.

Biden no doubt approved hiring YL. It is pretty clear that YL with in deep with Burisma letting them off the hook for 33 million dollars. Hunter was working for MZ, th e owner of the company that basically legally stole 37 million of tax monies, becasue of YL. I am only questing here but this might be part of the reason MZ fled the country, who know?

Honor, this first part if the documentary and following parts have scores of “points” like this or using your term “smoke” that drive my overall point.

Are you willing to at least watch this fist part of the documentary…it goes fast and is a “easy listen” but, a note pad will help if you want to explore the many references provided in the video.