And as I stated then, the entire US administration and the entire EU wanted him gone because he was investigating Burisma, which was funding the entire Democratic socialist enterprise. You didn't bring up any revisionist history bullcrap then, because it wasn't written then as it is in your latest line of malarkey you are trotting out.
Just to be clear, you believe that almost the entire media have colluded to carefully construct an elaborate retroactive narrative by planting numerous fabricated and falsely-dated articles, nobody noticed this blatant rewriting of history but you, and your sole evidence for believing this is the fact that a guy on the Internet didn't cite these articles during a discussion on a related (not even the same, just related) subject a few years ago?
Also, while I don't plan on doing this with every article I linked, I checked for the
Bloomberg article on the Internet Archive. It's been copied over seven hundred times between now and its supposed publication date, with the earliest being
this one from that same day, May 7th, 2019. How does this square with your theory of the article being posted recently and falsely dated? Is the Archive in on this conspiracy?
Wow. Democrats have been backed into a corner have resorted to this new narrative they that bribery did occur, but Joe Biden wasn't part of it:
Yes, Hunter Biden is sleazy and corrupt. We already knew this. Nobody has ever tried to deny it. You keep making the same basic observation over and over again and acting each time like it's brand new information. It's not.
We are expected to believe that foreign entities continually paid millions of dollars for something they did not get:
...
Sure. What foreign entities would continue to spend millions with no return on their investment?
Wealthy corporations and individuals (not sure what difference it makes if they're foreign) make poor investments and waste lots of money all the time. And if we're going to go down this route of "common sense" arguments that don't rely on actual evidence, then I have two of my own to make. Why would Biden partner with someone as flaky as his son for his criminal schemes? Hunter has been a drug addict for years, and he's well known for his wild partying and cavorting with prostitutes. Surely Joe would have enough connections through his decades in politics to find himself a far more reliable and discreet partner. Also, do you think that Hunter himself would be keeping quiet about it if Joe were connected with his crimes? This is the guy who made a move on his brother's widow and, as previously discussed, isn't enough of a man to be a part of his young daughter's life or even properly acknowledge her existence. He's a selfish, weak man with no real loyalty to his family. If he had been working with his father, he would have flipped on him a long time ago.
Honk and Roundy want us to believe that the prosecutor really was corrupt and it is only a coincidence that the Bidens were receiving millions of dollars from the company that was being prosecuted, and that it was only a coincidence that they pressured Hunter Biden to take care of it. It is one coincidence after the next.
And now, with this new narrative, we are expected to believe that corruption occurred, but everyone involved was corrupt except for Joe Biden, who was somehow fooled by his son in his son's corrupt bribery business dealings. Hunter Biden is the bad and evil one who is tricking his father into policy decisions. What an odd and increasingly desperate argument this is turning into.
No, it's not a coincidence. Burisma certainly hired Hunter in the hopes that he could curry favor with his father. But firing Shokin was not a result of this, because he was widely viewed as corrupt by the international community and the investigation into Burisma was dormant. Biden did not protect Burisma by demanding that Shokin be fired. That's simply not what happened, and it's pig-headed denialism to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it was otherwise.
That being said, though, I do appreciate you linking me the webpage from Congress that has actual documents on it rather than just a Twitter link to Ted Cruz bloviating on camera. I'll look into their claims and see what case they've made.