[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;526896]I am no doubt very stupid, but when in March 2016 did Biden meet Poroshenko?[/QUOTE]
Why would an actual meeting be necessary?

[QUOTE=kladner;526982]Why would an actual meeting be necessary?[/QUOTE]Given what Biden said about it in 2018 I'd say yes. It wouldn't make much sense if he were describing a phone conversation. Like relating that he said he was "leaving here in six hours."

I believe he either misremembered the date of the "showdown," or was deliberately embellishing his role in the affair.

[b]EDIT:[/b] And if Biden did [i]not[/i] meet Poroshenko in March 2016, it indicates that the folks flogging -- or simply passing on -- stories indicating that he did, are not checking their facts.

Fantastical embellishment (and outright lying) are stock in trade for Biden. I don't know the true circumstances of this event. I wonder if Joe does, now. :huh:

[QUOTE=kladner;526988]Fantastical embellishment (and outright lying) are stock in trade for Biden. I don't know the true circumstances of this event. I wonder if Joe does, now. :huh:[/QUOTE]Of course, embellishment of one's importance are stock in trade for a lot of folks. It's certainly not a crime.

Whether Biden actually remembers exactly when he relayed the threat to Poroshenko, or buys his own embellishments, may be pertinent to his fitness for the office of President.

OTOH, the current holder of that office has given several conflicting accounts of where he was and what he saw when the 9/11 attacks occurred, which seems more than passing strange. He also habitually gives counterfactual statements about darn near everything, without caring that he's lying or fantasizing. And nobody seems to give a rat's patootie.

[b]Oh, yes, and...[/b][quote]This man is a pathological liar, he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies ... in a pattern that is straight out of a psychology text book, he accuses everyone of lying ...
Whatever lie he's telling, at that minute he believes it ... the man is utterly amoral...[/quote] -- Ted Cruz (May 3, 2016)

Not that it matters, but...
 

Biden [i]did[/i] meet with Poroshenko in March 2016 -- on March 31, in DC. But by then, Shokin's dismissal had already been announced (March 29).

The closest date [i]before[/i] Shokin's dismissal I could find when Biden met Poroshenko was February 19, in Ukraine.

I was unfair to Ol' Joe. Lies are stock-in-trade to just about all politicians.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;527013]Biden [i]did[/i] meet with Poroshenko in March 2016 -- on March 31, in DC. But by then, Shokin's dismissal had already been announced (March 29).

The closest date [i]before[/i] Shokin's dismissal I could find when Biden met Poroshenko was February 19, in Ukraine.[/QUOTE]

Solomon's related "nightmare" article - linked to in his latest one above - explains the seeming discrepancy in terms of Biden embellishing the events in his recollection and/or his telling thereof:

"Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day."

Also, whether Biden *had* the authority to get the funds withheld or not is less important than whether he could convince top Ukrainian officialdom that he had such authority. For Biden, actual #2 in U.S. officialdom at the time, flying around the world on his own dedicated Boeing 7-series jetliner, a shameless me-and-Obama-are-besties "Barack"-by-his-first-name-dropper and a well-practiced bullshitter, doing such convincing seems not very much of a stretch. In fact, Biden has stated that Obama both knew about the squeeze play and was on board with it, though again, whether that is true or Biden telling another résumé-inflating lie is unclear.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;527114]Also, whether Biden *had* the authority to get the funds withheld or not is less important than whether he could convince top Ukrainian officialdom that he had such authority.[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. The Ukrainians aren't idiots. Even in Biden's account, he had them telling him that as VP he didn't have the authority, and he told them to call the president. This just shows that he was merely relaying threats from other quarters, which had the president's backing.

The interval of five and a half weeks between Biden's February 19 meeting with Poroshenko and Shokin's March 29 dismissal indicates that the Ukrainians didn't take his secondhand threats all that seriously.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;527116]Oh, please. The Ukrainians aren't idiots. Even in Biden's account, he had them telling him that as VP he didn't have the authority, and he told them to call the president. This just shows that he was merely relaying threats from other quarters, which had the president's backing.[/QUOTE]
Well, Biden's recollections clearly convinced *you* that he had the authority by way of the president - sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

[QUOTE]The interval of five and a half weeks between Biden's February 19 meeting with Poroshenko and Shokin's March 29 dismissal indicates that the Ukrainians didn't take his secondhand threats all that seriously.[/QUOTE]
As I just quoted, per Solomon the pressure was applied over months leading up to the Biden I'm-flying-out-in-6-hours meeting with Uk. officials - not necessarily including Poroschenko - in March. Without knowing what kinds of internal discussions were going on amongst Poroschenko and his top officials, you are leaping to an unwarranted conclusion. Per Shokin:

“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation"

which matches a "pressure applied over several months" narrative - and quite possibly, firing a top legal official like the Prosecutor General is a nontrivial matter even in a place like Ukraine.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;527116]Oh, please. The Ukrainians aren't idiots. Even in Biden's account, he had them telling him that as VP he didn't have the authority, and he told them to call the president. [/QUOTE]

Whether the Ukrainians believed Biden or not is *completely* irrelevant. If he attempted to get a prosecutor fired for the benefit of his son, then he is guilty of the crime the Democrats want to impeach Trump for.

I despise the Democrats for placing me in the position of agreeing with the wretched Trump. My read of the transcript is this is a giant nothing-burger. Horrors, a leader asks another leader for a favor that would make his life easier -- I'll bet that has *never* happened before. Trump, perhaps clumsily, asks for help in a possible corruption investigation, that does not sound illegal to me. He did not ask to have evidence planted or invented. Compare that to Watergate where Nixon's crew actually commit a crime, then go to great lengths to cover it up. My view is it is up to the Attorney General to tell Trump (after all the A.G. is the adult in the room) either there is no case against Biden or decide to pursue one.

Just curious: apparently there is a transcript kept of all presidential calls. Is the same true of Vice Presidential calls? If so, why doesn't the President simply find Biden's guilty calls and declassify the transcripts or hand them off to the Attorney General.

[QUOTE=Prime95;527120]Whether the Ukrainians believed Biden or not is *completely* irrelevant. If he attempted to get a prosecutor fired for the benefit of his son, then he is guilty of the crime the Democrats want to impeach Trump for.[/quote][i]If[/i] that's why he was doing it. That's a big if. There were [i]lots[/i] of people who wanted Shokin out.

[quote]Just curious: apparently there is a transcript kept of all presidential calls. Is the same true of Vice Presidential calls? If so, why doesn't the President simply find Biden's guilty calls and declassify the transcripts or hand them off to the Attorney General.[/QUOTE]
I would extend the first question to face-to-face meetings between Biden and Poroshenko.

And I'm pretty sure there are usually people taking notes at such meetings. However, most governments are quite reluctant to make the contents of high-level discussions with other countries public.