Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 28 2023 09:34pm)
All those NATO powers were calling Shokin an honest and reliable prosecutor up until he started going after Zlochevsky. Through Shokin's term in the post-Maidan and up until late 2015, the Obama administration was praising him. There was no push to remove him until the moment he authorized seizing the property of Zlochevsky, who we know paid $5 million to Hunter Biden for the express purpose of getting Joe Biden to force Shokin to get off his back, and the evidence suggests he also paid $5 million to Joe Biden directly in bribes for this purpose. And then Joe Biden overtly did just that.
As a thought experiment, how much more proof of a quid pro quo could we possibly have? Assume Biden is guilty of taking bribes, what more could possibly be shown than money flowing to him, transcripts and documentation and witness testimony of a direct request of an illicit exchange of political favor for money, and then that favor being performed exactly as requested and done by weaponizing government policy? What's the higher bar to satisfy? Need a video with two forms of government ID, a police officer, his buddies taking notes and his grandmother to confirm his identity as he feels up a little girl?
Republicans already proved quid pro quos dont matter during impeachment #1, so what's the problem here?
Remember when trump told zelenskiy he was holding up aid money and weapons to Ukraine until Ukraine investigates Biden? Was that not a bribe/quid pro quo? Was that not an attempt to weaponize the government to influence an election?
There is actual proof of trumps quid quo pro, not some anonymous source who "heard Biden got paid $5 million from ukraine", but obviously none of that matters to the cult