Santa

This is from the Babylon Bee. And it's a hoot.

If Santa were phoning kids without the proper diplomatic channels (i.e. their parents) then yes, f**king arrest Santa! That's misconduct!!!

You must be talking about Biden and Obama

Biden admitted to it on video.

Did he? So, during this so-called confession, when did he mention his son? And when was this prosecutor investigating his son?

You're asking me to support things that I never claimed. I never implied anything about proper channels, nor stated exactly why Biden leveraged the aid for the firing. As I said, you're looking for proof of things I never claimed.

But this interesting story did pop today. https://www.theblaze.com/news/latvia-was-investigating-suspicious-payments-to-hunter-biden-burisma-in-potential-laundering-scheme-report

While you never claimed, you implied by defending someone else’s implied claim. As I said. All your evidence is irrelevant to the original claim.

And you get to go on conveniently defending something you continue to imply with nothing but articles that allude to corruption but without proof.

Shall we continue or are you going to repeat that I’m “asking you to support things you never claimed?”

If you go back to the meme, you see the claim and that it is not what you are pretending it to be and as such no implication of what you saying was made. The articles themselves do not imply corruption either, so I only assume that you reached that conclusion and are thus laying it at mt feet instead of admitting to such.

Hah. Your intent is easily deduced to imply corruption. And you seem to have no interest in providing evidence to the topic of the meme nor the comments you actually replied to. Come back when you can and perhaps we can have a serious conversation.

In other words your reading into stuff that isn't there so you can talk about that instead of what I'm actually saying as I have provided evidence on the topic of the meme, but you keep changing the subject to what you want me to actually mean so you do not have to deal with it.

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

So, no where did he mention his son and nor was the prosecutor investigating his son. Gotcha!

The prosecutor was investigating the company his son worked for. https://www.wsj.com/articles/firm-hired-by-ukraines-burisma-tried-to-use-hunter-biden-as-leverage-documents-show-11573009615 https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/firm-hired-by-ukraines-burisma-tried-to-use-hunter-biden-as-leverage-documents-show-11573009615

Found it!

The article you linked points to a Washington-based consulting firm trying to use Hunter Biden as a way to improve Burisma's, the Ukraine company that Biden worked for, image. It doesn't substantiate the claims that the prosecutor was investigating Hunter Biden specifically, nor does it substantiate the claims that the prosecutor's investigation would somehow effect Hunter Biden's career within Burisma.

You're looking for proof of things I never claimed and thus have no reason to try to prove and overlooking evidence for what I actually claimed, . https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/34191-former-president-of-poland-burisma-hired-hunter-biden-for-his-last-name

Are you sure about that?

You replied with a silly comment that implied Obama and Hunter "didn't go through the proper diplomatic channels"

Then I asked for evidence. You never provided it at all.

You claimed he admitted it and linked to a video of Biden telling a story about actually speaking through proper diplomatic channels. So, again, not evidence.

I also asked if Biden mentioned his son or if the prosecutor was investigating his son.

You replied that the prosecutor was investigating the company his son was working for. And continued to post evidence that the Biden name had been used for personal gain, except in the case of Biden's "confession" of which neither were used nor proof that they had a factor in the prosecutor being fired.

So, you have Joe Biden, confessing he has a great diplomatic ability. That his son's company was under investigation, but not his son. That Hunter Biden's name was used by a proxy for his company to improve relations with the State Department. And that Hunter Biden used his name to get a job in a foreign the company.

Nothing of which supports your claim, that Obama and Biden didn't go through proper channels.

So, do you have any evidence or do you have more articles to read that don't support your claim?

However, neither Biden nor his son were under investigation by the Ukraine government for corruption nor did Biden's son stand to lose anything from the prosecutor's investigation into the company Hunter worked for.

The firing of the prosecutor was completely unrelated and was under the direction and officially authorized by the US government under it's current foreign policy.

"That one works." It's the same link.

OH! It was two links. I see. My bad.

You used a false premise and reached a conclusion that doesn't follow from your premises.

Yes, that is exactly what you did.

Actually, that's what Donald Trump did and you're echoing that premise. Much as those who follow and support him tend to do. They, unfortunately, do not line up with the facts.

Also, that link is dead.

No, I just searched for it and copy pasted it and double checked and it is fine. https://www.wsj.com/articles/firm-hired-by-ukraines-burisma-tried-to-use-hunter-biden-as-leverage-documents-show-11573009615

That one works.

Well that's a nice "NO! U!" response.

Well, when you start with a false premise and I correct you on the facts, I could see why you'd see it as such.

No, I stated facts that you don't like ans an opinion that you disagree with. My conclusion from the facts I left unstated.

You stated the falsehood that Hunter had nothing to gain. Hunter was in part used for his name to gain leverage, so if that wouldn't work, he would have less reason to be employed.

Actually you directly linked to an opinion piece that I disagreed with. Your conclusion based on someone else's opinion is irrelevant.

https://www.wsj.com/video/>>>>>OPINION<<<<-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

I stated that there is no proof that Hunter had nothing to lose from the prosecutor's investigation. His name was indeed used in part to gain leverage into being employed and there was indeed an attempt to use his name in the State Department to improve Burisma's image. Whether that attempt succeeded is irrelevant as the US Government's opinion of the prosecutor at the time was that he was corrupt and did not support US interests in Ukraine.

Video of Biden talking isn't actual opinion about what Biden said. Nice of you not to be able to tell the difference between facts and opinion and nitpick the link title instead of dealing with the facts. And if his name didn't get the company what it wanted, is a reason to fire him and thus proof he had something to lose, his job.

True it is a factual video of Biden speaking, but painting it as some sort of a confession of wrongdoing any kind is misleading.

And Hunter Biden being hired for his name isn't proof that Burisma somehow had leverage over Biden. I'm sure Hunter Biden's career would've been just fine if Burisma had fired him because his daddy didn't do what they wanted. Not that there is any proof of that either.

You're still refuting things that I have not stated. But nice goal post moving from that Hunter had nothing to gain.

Perhaps if you stayed on topic you would be less confused about what proof you're providing evidence for?

I see you moved the goal post again and once again ignored the rest of the facts I already presented.

You talk of moving goal posts when you can’t even get first down. No goal post has moved. You have provided no proof of corruption on the part of Biden beyond him telling a story of him acting as a representative of our country, not for himself.

Sorry, you new goalpost is not the one you asked me to clear.

You’ve cleared nothing. You’ve proven nothing.

Pretending the facts do not exist doesn't make them go away.

I’m not denying the facts. I’m denying that they are evidence that support your claim.

You moving the goal post from what you directly asked for to something different is not confusion on my part.

So no evidence then?

Evidence has been provided, ignoring it and moving the goalpost doesn't make the facts go away.

Then please, repost this evidence suggesting that Biden or Obama failed to go through proper diplomatic channels then.

Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

You mean the video I posted several times? Nice to see you flip flopped the subject from Hunter to Joe. https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

So, no where did he mention his son and nor was the prosecutor investigating his son. Gotcha!

Again, you got nothing but a video of Biden being a diplomat standing against corruption.