honorentheos wrote:Former prosecutors? Seriously? It's like you failed to process anything from any of the sources that doesn't align with your view Hunter must have gotten something from Daddy to explain his salary because innuendo and supposition.
And he has no idea what the something could be. It wasn’t Hunter’s salary, as Markk has admitted that it isn’t indicative of corruption.
Maybe you can read a bit more of that post and see the names that I bolded?
Aren’t you the one always accusing others of ‘not reading’? ; )
Back up what they said...
Here are your names...
Vitaly Tytych,
a attorney representing familes, I assume in a law suit and has nothing to do with Burisma...
Serhiy Horbatyuk, who headed the special investigation department which was eventually given responsibility for investigating the European crimes, clashed with the leadership of the general prosecutor’s office.
“On Euromaidan, Shokin did not actively impede our investigations,” he says. “But he didn’t help them either. It seemed deliberate.”
If anything it defends Shokin as much as it hurts him, and has nothing to do with the Bidens or Burisma....nothing.
Remember Shokin was GP from Feb 15 2015 to March 2016...
This is from wiki on Euromaidan
he Euromaidan (Ukrainian: Євромайдан, Yevromaidan, literally "Eurosquare"[nb 1]) was a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine, which began on the night of 21 November 2013 with very large public protests demanding closer European integration. The scope of the protests evolved over subsequent months, culminating in resignation of Azarov's government and ousting of President Yanukovych.[4] Protesters also have stated they joined because of the dispersal of protesters on 30 November and "a will to change life in Ukraine".[5] By 25 January 2014 the protests had been fueled by the perception of widespread government corruption, abuse of power, and violation of human rights in Ukraine.[6]
So be specific of what your point is....what investigation of Euromadian is your evidence? Bolding aname means nothing.
First among them was Yehor Soboliev, then a reformist MP of the Samopomich faction and chair of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee. In July 2015, Soboliev pressed for a vote on Shokin’s ousting. The arithmetic was always against him, as the general prosecutor was a figure of the ruling coalition. But he came surprisingly close, collecting 127 signatures from a required 150. Several members of the ruling parties broke ranks to support his move.
“We were under no illusions,” Soboliev tells The Independent. “We saw how Shokin had made an art of dumping cases while pretending to investigate. How he was a symbol of ineffectiveness and stalling. How he was the embodiment of the post-Soviet prosecutor.”
This was political, he failed to get the required votes...of the 450 seats, he got 127. So more disagreed with him that agreed...
He is now a political talk show host, a Rachel Meadows or Sean Hannity according to wiki.
You created another straw-man, and it fell, or at the least offer me something that you can back up.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
honorentheos wrote:Former prosecutors? Seriously? It's like you failed to process anything from any of the sources that doesn't align with your view Hunter must have gotten something from Daddy to explain his salary because innuendo and supposition.
And he has no idea what the something could be. It wasn’t Hunter’s salary, as Markk has admitted that it isn’t indicative of corruption.
I said salary alone isn't, and gave yo a list of many of the evidences...you are lying again...
Troll
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
honorentheos wrote:Those aren't ad homs. They are insults directed at you, not attempts to undermine your argument based on claims your source is ____. Insults, d__a__.
LOL...because I gave you facts you can't deal with...your premise was exposed as a nothing but a talking point...nothing else. I will add a talking point you can't defend...which brings out the ad hom style of argument, which includes insults...so either way I understand.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
honorentheos wrote:Former prosecutors? Seriously? It's like you failed to process anything from any of the sources that doesn't align with your view Hunter must have gotten something from Daddy to explain his salary because innuendo and supposition.
Your sources are news paper articles with no other back up...? You put no effort into fact checking anything. In other words you buy talking points hook, line, and sinker.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
You've been given plenty of evidence going back long before the accusations against Biden rose to prominence due to the impeachment hearing. You just don't seem to understand what you are reading or have been given over multiple threads now. You criticize a news article because it includes evidence you don't like that contradicts Shokins own claims. That's about as telling as it gets. How many people does it take who were in a position to know who were demonstrably working to combat corruption who state Shokin was one of the bad actors before you accept it? 10? 100? 1000? I don't think you realize the number already provided is very high. And that's of people with their own records of fighting corruption not other people on the take. I mean, you complained to canpakes that the corrupt Ukraine government didn't support removing Shokin so Shokin must not have been corrupt enough to remove. Good damned Christ.
I was getting into this due to having read Moneyland a while before the impeachment which certainly influenced my take on your evidence. If you were to go back to the very start of this discussion in whichever thread it started in you'll see me tell you which people I understand to have been actually fighting corruption and who was corrupt themselves. Your process seems to be you evaluate a source for legitimacy based on if they are supporting you views that go against Biden. And you choose this because you read a book that winks and nods to you about how there just has to be something going on there because why else would Burisma have paid Hunter what they paid him? All I can do is shake my head at that. You seem oblivious to the idea that they were paying for Hunters name, but that in no way means they were getting benefits directly from favorable treatment on the part of Joe Biden. All you have is innuendo. It's crazy that you are stuck with your blinders on like this while claiming everyone else is ignoring your evidence. You are a dumbass. It's that simple.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
canpakes wrote:And he has no idea what the something could be. It wasn’t Hunter’s salary, as Markk has admitted that it isn’t indicative of corruption.
I said salary alone isn't, and gave yo a list of many of the evidences...you are lying again...
Troll
Salary alone apparently isn’t any part of it. You are incapable of explaining the relevance of his pay at any level. Your best effort came from a flawed comparison of his pay to the average of ‘board members’ across presumably all American companies required by law to have board members, then you proclaimed that he was overpaid - although you have no idea why, or by how much.
Nor can you explain why his being hired as a board member indicates corruption.
You’ve spectacularly failed to make your case. It’s no lie to point out that obvious failure.
Markk wrote:Your sources are news paper articles with no other back up...? You put no effort into fact checking anything. In other words you buy talking points hook, line, and sinker.
Can you tell me how honor’s newspaper articles quoting particular folks intimate with the matter is different than your articles quoting particular folks presumably familiar with the matter?
I can think of one glaring difference. Whereas honor and others have provided input from a substantial number of sources or folks that align with the vast majority of trustworthy opinions and conclusions, you - in comparison - are carrying water for Soviet sympathizers and disgraced ex-officials that virtually all reputable authorities in the West see as untrustworthy.
But, hey - your reputation isn’t worth preserving so long as you can trade it for the opportunity to besmirch any potential rival to Trump, by parroting baseless allegations and asinine innuendo.
canpakes wrote:First among them was Yehor Soboliev, then a reformist MP of the Samopomich faction and chair of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee. In July 2015, Soboliev pressed for a vote on Shokin’s ousting. The arithmetic was always against him, as the general prosecutor was a figure of the ruling coalition. But he came surprisingly close, collecting 127 signatures from a required 150. Several members of the ruling parties broke ranks to support his move.
“We were under no illusions,” Soboliev tells The Independent. “We saw how Shokin had made an art of dumping cases while pretending to investigate. How he was a symbol of ineffectiveness and stalling. How he was the embodiment of the post-Soviet prosecutor.”
This was political, he failed to get the required votes...of the 450 seats, he got 127. So more disagreed with him that agreed...
He is now a political talk show host, a Rachel Meadows or Sean Hannity according to wiki.
You created another straw-man, and it fell, or at the least offer me something that you can back up.
To point out what you’re not able to read: “The arithmetic was always against him, as the general prosecutor was a figure of the ruling coalition.” Ruling coalitions must always be right, then. Even if populated by corrupt individuals. Correct? : D
As for the rest - if you have evidence that the names and sources cannot be trusted, then provide it. Otherwise, maybe you should follow your own selectively dogmatic rules and provide to the audience here your evidence why the couple of disgraced and corrupt figures that you are siding with - and against the conclusions of virtually all Western powers that dealt with them - are to be trusted?
Markk, you are determined to be the textbook example of a tool. I don’t think that I’ve seen anyone try this hard for the label in years.