Republicans Cannot Admit That Joe Biden Has Constitutional Privacy Rights

[jc456]

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

You seem to be very confused. The Prosecutor General who Biden got fired shortly after a sniper tried to get rid of him via assassination (A case that is still under investigation BTW) is PG Viktor Shokin. You and many other Biden apologists here keep claiming that he was corrupt. Fair enough, you are entitled to your uninformed opinion.

The problem is, when you assert that PG Shokin was corrupt that implies that he committed a crime. Yet PG Shokin has never been convicted of any crime. He's never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. And when pressed to cite the specific law that you Biden apologists are so convinced that Shokin violated, you guys always come up with nothing. All you can come up with is vague unsubstantiated rumors that he is corrupt.

However, there definitely is a corrupt prosecutor involved and that Is Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Biden wanted Shokin fired and replaced with a "solid guy". Fair enough. But there was a snag, Biden's "solid guy" didn't really have solid credentials. Usually becoming the top prosecutor in the land requires some decent credentials for you to even be considered for the position and Ukraine was no exception. Specifically, under Ukrainian law you had to have a law degree and at least 10 years of experience practicing law to be eligible for the Prosecutor General position.

However, Biden's "solid guy" Lutsenko didn't have quite 10 years experience practicing law. Or 9 years experience. Actually he didn't have any experience. Nor did he have a law degree or ever enroll in law school for that matter. He wasn't even qualified to be a paralegal. Poor Joe. But then...

Well SON OF A BITCH! They changed the law! Now Joe Biden's "solid guy", or anyone else for matter, was eligible for the Prosecutor General job, and whuddayano, Joe got his solid guy into office. Lutsenko had no credentials but at least he wasn't corrupt, right? Wrong, actually Lutsenko was an ex-con. Joe Biden's solid guy had recently done hard time after being convicted of embezzlement and abuse of office.

"Solid guy" indeed.

Think about that. What would you think if a US president nominated a felon convicted of abuse of office with no law degree to be the US Attorney General and the Senate confirmed him?

Would you suspect that there was some kind of shenanigans going on?

wasn't biden interfering in a foreign country? I mean, seriously, do these fks think we all walk around braindead? really?

 

[Olde Europe]

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job. The reports are that Joe Biden, at the time, learned about it from media reports.

Media, and the reports have rights, too--clearly opposed by Olde Europe loving poster: In US Law, famously known even worldwide. See toward the bottom of the link.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden. More criminal civil rights violations arise--going even to the matter of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and directed interference, per request, with the foreign invasion in the matter of the violation of civil rights--expected to be honored, even treaty.
Joe Biden & Ukraine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great mounds created from shovels: Don't Lie!)

There are numerous reports that Hunter told his dad about the job.

And you need to read more closely, particularly so as they quote a carefully crafted campaign statement, and you may assume that every single word in it has been carefully chosen. So, when they say, Joe was not aware of Hunter's "role" on the Burisma board, and learned about this role from media reports, that is something entirely different from, but entirely compatible with, Joe's knowledge about Hunter's presence on this board.

 

[jc456]

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job. The reports are that Joe Biden, at the time, learned about it from media reports.

Media, and the reports have rights, too--clearly opposed by Olde Europe loving poster: In US Law, famously known even worldwide. See toward the bottom of the link.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden. More criminal civil rights violations arise--going even to the matter of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and directed interference, per request, with the foreign invasion in the matter of the violation of civil rights--expected to be honored, even treaty.
Joe Biden & Ukraine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great mounds created from shovels: Don't Lie!)

There are numerous reports that Hunter told his dad about the job.

And you need to read more closely, particularly so as they quote a carefully crafted campaign statement, and you may assume that every single word in it has been carefully chosen. So, when they say, Joe was not aware of Hunter's "role" on the Burisma board, and learned about this role from media reports, that is something entirely different from, but entirely compatible with, Joe's knowledge about Hunter's presence on this board.

well then you need to explain this interview.

Joe Biden To FOX News Reporter: "Ask The Right Questions" About Ukraine

PETER DOOCY: Mr. Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?

JOE BIDEN: I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.

hmmmm that implies you lie. As does Biden then.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

ABC Sunday morning always asks if guests approve of Trump inviting foreign interference in US Election, investigating opponents: Primarily Vice President Biden. Republicans invariably deflect noting that the White House cannot send monies into nest of corrupt activities--wherein intended outcome would not occur.

The actual conflict-of-interest in the Ukraine Phone Call--corruption--centers on Hunter Biden. No one denies that taking the lucrative Ukrainian lawfully provided stipend for the directorship was a conflict of interest. Hunter never advised the Vice President's Office of the new position.

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

So no probable cause exists to infer that the Vice President--Biden--may have improperly used leverage to get the prosecutor fired. The Corruption Thing, same legal basis.

In the matter of the phone call, not even any references to allegations of wrong-doing are noted in requesting a Ukrainian investigation of the U. S. private citizen, former Vice-President Biden.

The failure of the White House is tantamount to a KGB assassination attempt, even: Creating an incident outside of applicable law of Soviet, or now-Russian federation.

The President of the United States was not upholding and defending the U. S. Constitution: In the matter of creating a warrant-free request of another nation--outside the usual extradition and legal proceeding rules--to violate the private citizen's constitutional rights.

The FBI even has way more experience at it.(?). . .the matter of corruption investigations.

Federal Investigations: What Everyone Should Know

The Republicans have no basis on which to allege a corruption investigation in the matter of the subject phone call transcript between the two Presidents: Especially as the additional details unfold. Joe Biden does have Constitutional protections. The Presidents is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States: Clearly including the Constitutional protections.

Process stuff!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes imported even Great Fire Ant Mounds to assist in usual investigations on Lands of Many Nations--just maybe(?)!)

uuuuum nope
there is no right to privacy when taking bribes from the Ukrainians

 

[Care4all]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

BTW, Liberal don't care about the privacy rights of our Soldiers.
They want to force our female soldiers to share their living quarters with deranged men wearing dresses.
They want to force straight men to share their living quarters with gay men.

 

[BluesLegend]

I see the left's latest deflection of Biden's corruption is that he's a victim, there's a shocker. #sarcasm alert

 

[jc456]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

telling them? where. post that quote. hmmmm you've had too many jim jone's kooliad treats.

 

[BluesLegend]

BTW, Liberal don't care about the privacy rights of our Soldiers.
They want to force our female soldiers to share their living quarters with deranged men wearing dresses.
They want to force straight men to share their living quarters with gay men.

The left's double standards is off the charts. They truly define what it means to be despicable.

 

[jc456]

BTW, Liberal don't care about the privacy rights of our Soldiers.
They want to force our female soldiers to share their living quarters with deranged men wearing dresses.
They want to force straight men to share their living quarters with gay men.

The left's double standards is off the charts. They truly define what it means to be despicable.

complicit.

 

[Care4all]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

telling them? where. post that quote. hmmmm you've had too many jim jone's kooliad treats.

gawd, you must have your head up FOX and Briebart and gateway pundit's rear end for your news....

Hint, read up on what all the witnesses have said in their opening statement's

and then reread the phone call memo, do it out loud...reading it out loud is important, and tell me what you think it says and if you come to the parts with the ellipses, the dot dot dots, and if they make any sense at all? Clearly big parts of the call are MISSING....

well we got what some of those missing parts are, from first hand witnesses...to the call....

 

[mascale]

So Care4all poster summarizes the deep problem raised in the phone call. In fact a warrant probably was necessary for the White House to make the phone call, if the intent was the favor. Others cite a post of mine: The phone call raised no allegations of a warrant having been created. The transcript is public and excerpted in this thread. "People Talking" is raised, but not a warrant to ask the foreign power to initiate an investigation of a US National--just possibly creating a pretext to foray into the borders of the USA--maybe to extort something(?). Below is how the matter of the talking allegations is treated by defenders. Lightly, as though talking--even under some influence--was all that was needed.
____________________________________
The phone call raised no allegations of a warrant having been created,
Of course no warrant is ever needed for a phone call.
_________________________________
A warrant was needed for the phone call--and volumes and volumes of jurisprudence.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe put Great Mounds near to phone companies!)

 

[Muhammed]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

^^^
Complete bullshit. Nearly every word of it.

 

[Olde Europe]

I was not aware of Lutsenko's background, so I checked him out. Multiple sources have confirmed that everything you said about him is true.

Many thanks.

Also not the one closely to read what you then end up praising, aren't you? After all, what do you make of a statement like, "Joe got his solid guy into office"? Did he, really? Because to me it seems, Biden got Shokin out, but the Parliament of Ukraine got the replacement in. Words actually matter, Professor. The mendacious effort to blame Biden for the choice Ukraine - a sovereign nation, all told - made shouldn't be all that hard to detect. That's just the beginning. Lutsenko was indicted and convicted by a thoroughly corrupt regime, and many, including the EU, suspected foul play and protested against it. Omitted was that, yes, formerly the post of Prosecutor General required a law degree, but the Parliament of Ukraine changed that before getting Lutsenko on the post. Funny you didn't detect that while consulting "Multiple sources".

Also, on the issue of Shokin, there were the ludicrous questions as to what laws he broke, as if a prosecutor sitting on his hands by necessity breaks any laws. Also, his immediate subordinates were caught with immense riches stashed away at their homes, and prosecutors trying to prosecute the "diamond prosecutors" were fired - by Shokin. So, there is enough by way of the stench of corruption hanging over Shokin for him to be accused to have caused irreparable damage to the Ukrainian justice system.

Really, Professor, you've been had by an inveterate liar, and pretty obviously so. Could you up your game a bit?

 

[jc456]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

telling them? where. post that quote. hmmmm you've had too many jim jone's kooliad treats.

gawd, you must have your head up FOX and Briebart and gateway pundit's rear end for your news....

Hint, read up on what all the witnesses have said in their opening statement's

and then reread the phone call memo, do it out loud...reading it out loud is important, and tell me what you think it says and if you come to the parts with the ellipses, the dot dot dots, and if they make any sense at all? Clearly big parts of the call are MISSING....

well we got what some of those missing parts are, from first hand witnesses...to the call....

all opinions. nothing more. NOTHING MORE

 

[iceberg]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

oh hi. it's you.

i'm going to shorten this for myself and just assume you went along the lines of "this is different" and went on to say why trump sucks and doesn't deserves the very rights people are saying the left does in fact deserve.

however, i did read TRUMP SUCKS and i ask you - where did i mention trump? i said sara, and even ted cruz, deserve to be left alone when eating with family. we *all* do.

but i'm sure for you, it's different. but then you had to change the focus of the topic so you could get your daily quota of trump slams in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sarah Huckabee has a right to a peaceful dinner. As do we all I suppose. Where was this outrage when her and other conservatives were "attacked" while eating or not allowed to eat in some places?

she does have an implied right to eat in peace imo.... not certain a constitutional right

But it is not the US Govt or the President, that is denying that right....

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and is a breach of the president's oath of office to defend the constitution.

There are procedures that give Americans rights, even in foreign nations, even if they have allegedly committed a crime over seas.

And if our DOJ believes they have committed a crime in a foreign Nation we have an agreement with, the DOJ, not the president, follows those procedures which give any American citizen their Constitutional rights, including processes that include there needing to be probable cause for the investigation, and legal processed warrants with our judiciary and so on and so forth. ...that our DOJ uses with the foreign gvt's department of justice to proceed in such an investigation of a USA citizen.

What the president and his shadow gvt were trying to do, was clearly unconstitutional....

Not even to get in to holding back aid and a visit to D.C. until this foreign gvt starts a new investigation in to his rival and rival's son and company he worked for 3 to 4 years ago, going outside of the law to do it....with cronies with ties to the Russian Mafia... along with an investigation in to crowdstrike, another American company, again, ALL WITHOUT the DOJ and constitutional rights for those Americans the president decided for his own personal benefit to go after, without probable cause etc.....

The DOJ WAS NOT INVOLVED according to Barr.

He is a real DANGER to this Nation, our Constitution, and citizens within.

Whereas the President, going to a foreign country's govt, and asking / telling them they must investigate ANY American citizen, without the constitutional rights all Americans are given in the homeland overseas, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

You think the US Constitution protects you when the Ukrainian government looks at your actions in the Ukraine?

You're kidding, right?

 

[The Professor]

I was not aware of Lutsenko's background, so I checked him out. Multiple sources have confirmed that everything you said about him is true.

Many thanks.

Also not the one closely to read what you then end up praising, aren't you? After all, what do you make of a statement like, "Joe got his solid guy into office"? Did he, really? Because to me it seems, Biden got Shokin out, but the Parliament of Ukraine got the replacement in. Words actually matter, Professor. The mendacious effort to blame Biden for the choice Ukraine - a sovereign nation, all told - made shouldn't be all that hard to detect. That's just the beginning. Lutsenko was indicted and convicted by a thoroughly corrupt regime, and many, including the EU, suspected foul play and protested against it. Omitted was that, yes, formerly the post of Prosecutor General required a law degree, but the Parliament of Ukraine changed that before getting Lutsenko on the post. Funny you didn't detect that while consulting "Multiple sources".

Also, on the issue of Shokin, there were the ludicrous questions as to what laws he broke, as if a prosecutor sitting on his hands by necessity breaks any laws. Also, his immediate subordinates were caught with immense riches stashed away at their homes, and prosecutors trying to prosecute the "diamond prosecutors" were fired - by Shokin. So, there is enough by way of the stench of corruption hanging over Shokin for him to be accused to have caused irreparable damage to the Ukrainian justice system.

Really, Professor, you've been had by an inveterate liar, and pretty obviously so. Could you up your game a bit?

I was not aware of Lutsenko's background, so I checked him out. Multiple sources have confirmed that everything you said about him is true.

Many thanks.

Also not the one closely to read what you then end up praising, aren't you? After all, what do you make of a statement like, "Joe got his solid guy into office"? Did he, really? Because to me it seems, Biden got Shokin out, but the Parliament of Ukraine got the replacement in. Words actually matter, Professor. The mendacious effort to blame Biden for the choice Ukraine - a sovereign nation, all told - made shouldn't be all that hard to detect. That's just the beginning. Lutsenko was indicted and convicted by a thoroughly corrupt regime, and many, including the EU, suspected foul play and protested against it. Omitted was that, yes, formerly the post of Prosecutor General required a law degree, but the Parliament of Ukraine changed that before getting Lutsenko on the post. Funny you didn't detect that while consulting "Multiple sources".

Also, on the issue of Shokin, there were the ludicrous questions as to what laws he broke, as if a prosecutor sitting on his hands by necessity breaks any laws. Also, his immediate subordinates were caught with immense riches stashed away at their homes, and prosecutors trying to prosecute the "diamond prosecutors" were fired - by Shokin. So, there is enough by way of the stench of corruption hanging over Shokin for him to be accused to have caused irreparable damage to the Ukrainian justice system.

Really, Professor, you've been had by an inveterate liar, and pretty obviously so. Could you up your game a bit?

I am on the top of my game and I've been there for a long, long time. I am an 80-year old man with both an MBA and JD. I know what is going on in the world and unlike you I know how to research. It is YOU who has a problem. You falsely accused me of believing a congenital liar. I am assuming you are talking about Muhammed, the one who posted the article I responded to and agreed with. If you had bothered to read my brief response to his article, you would have known I did not rely on what he said but instead checked his story out with multiple Internet sources. This is my exact response to Muhammed's article: (see post #46)

“I was not aware of Lutsenko's background, so I checked him out. Multiple sources have confirmed that everything you said about him is true.

“Many thanks.”

I am reasonably certain that most USMB posters would understand my comment to mean I had to verify what Muhammed said to believe it, especially since he provided no links. I am surprised that you failed to comprehend my very brief and very obvious message. Now let's look at what Muhammed said about Lutsenko:

“However, there definitely is a corrupt prosecutor involved and that Is Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Biden wanted Shokin fired and replaced with a "solid guy". Fair enough. But there was a snag, Biden's "solid guy" didn't really have solid credentials. Usually becoming the top prosecutor in the land requires some decent credentials for you to even be considered for the position and Ukraine was no exception. Specifically, under Ukrainian law you had to have a law degree and at least 10 years of experience practicing law to be eligible for the Prosecutor General position.

“However, Biden's "solid guy" Lutsenko didn't have quite 10 years experience practicing law. Or 9 years experience. Actually he didn't have any experience. Nor did he have a law degree or ever enroll in law school for that matter. He wasn't even qualified to be a paralegal. Poor Joe. But then...

“Well SON OF A BITCH! They changed the law! Now Joe Biden's "solid guy", or anyone else for matter, was eligible for the Prosecutor General job, and whuddayano, Joe got his solid guy into office. Lutsenko had no credentials but at least he wasn't corrupt, right? Wrong, actually Lutsenko was an ex-con. Joe Biden's solid guy had recently done hard time after being convicted of embezzlement and abuse of office.”

As I said, I consulted multiple sources and verified that what Muhammed said was true. Now, I have a question for you: What did Muhammed say in his post cited above which is not true? I suggest you do a little research before you answer.

PS: Your calling Muhammed a congenital liar was both unfounded and childish. His post turned out to be true.

One last thing, you said:

“Omitted was that, yes, formerly the post of Prosecutor General required a law degree, but the Parliament of Ukraine changed that before getting Lutsenko on the post. Funny you didn't detect that while consulting 'Multiple sources'".

Wrong again. If you bothered to read Muhammed's article you would know he said they changed the law to accommodate Lutsenko. The article is posted above; try reading it more slowly this time. When I said I verified that everything he said was true, that meant that I also verified that they did in fact change the law to allow Lutsenko to assume the post. I am beginning to think you have serious reading comprehension problems.

 

[hunarcy]

The Constitution is a written document, and case-law volumes fill up entire buildings all over the USA.

1. The conflict of interest is not the subject of the phone call.
2. Vice-President Biden's office was not apprised of the new Hunter Biden employment.
3. The subject of the Russian annexation of Crimea does appear in the background.
4. The USA and entire continents had further condemned also that.
5. The Republicans are trapped into acknowledging that the Vice-President had widespread concurrence--and even on advice from the Obama White House: To proceed with the anti-corruption demand in that matter.
6. The President of the Ukraine--Merkel and the other named leadership--were not cited as having created allegations against Joe Biden.
7. That by itself weighs in too heavily.
8. An entire range of officials all over--on-board or not with the Crimean Annexation--were mentioned, and in the context of being replaced.
9. No ties to Vice-President Biden were alleged.
10. The aid became an outcome of the phone call, but was only legal due to the Congressional appropriation.
11. The Faithful Execution of the Laws gap is significant--many would say--way beyond just a breach of the law.

The Republicans are even stuck with the problem that the Crimean Annextion was actually a basis to not meet with Vladimir Putin.

So any traveler from the USA does not lose US Constitutional protections--on that basis--even airlines can believe in. . .and then it's on the Cruise Lines, the fishing tours, the train companies: And the circus dog acts.

What Poochie can believe in: So can . . . .voters. Citizenship applies internationally, even to Blacks(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Need more Fire Ant Mounds.. . .For France(?!))

The seriousness of the charge DEMANDS investigation...isn't that the standard Democrats demand?

 

[Olde Europe]

If you bothered to read Muhammed's article you would know he said they changed the law to accommodate Lutsenko.

Yeah, you got me there - I was sloppy.

The rest of my prior post stands.