> Hi OC
> Here I'll spoon feed you on this since your so
> inept at understanding what is documentation.
> From the first source RS
> "I can confirm to you tonight that the Ukrainian
> government was planning to reopen the Burisma
> investigation. This was long before the President
> ever imagined having a call with President
> Zelensky. In fact, it was before President
> Zelensky was even elected. This is a significant
> shift in the factual timeline. This is information
> that was omitted from the whistleblower’s
> complaint. Let me tell you what we learned today.
> The U.S. government had open source intelligence
> and was aware that NABU [National Anti-Corruption
> Bureau of Ukraine], an FBI-like agency in Ukraine
> that fights corruption – in fact, it was started
> by Joe Biden – that it had reopened an
> investigation into Burisma, its owner Zlochevsky
> and unusual transactions in the Burisma accounts
> in February 2019. On March 28, 2019, the
> Prosecutor General’s office agreed to that
> request to open an investigation and they filed a
> 15-page notice of suspicion alleging that there
> may be illicit funds that were running through
> Burisma from 2010 all the way through 2015,
> that’s important, because Hunter Biden’s on
> the board for two of those years, 2014-2015. And
> specifically, that notice of suspicion said they
> were looking at the possibility that the $3.4
> million paid to Hunter Biden’s firm may have
> been part of the illicit funds that were moving
> through the company. A month later, in April, the
> Prosecutor’s Office, open source intelligence
> again, the U.S. government officials confirming
> they were aware of this request of another
> investigative agency in Ukraine for assistance in
> going through these bank records. That is a
> significant change in the timeline. It was omitted
> from the whistleblower’s complaint and the
> question is, did he not know it or did he exclude
> it because it didn’t fit the narrative he was
> trying to write. That’s a question for Congress
> to answer."
> Second source:"During his testimony, he outlined
> how he thought there were legitimate conflict of
> interest concerns about Hunter Biden being on the
> board of Burisma in 2015 and he said that he
> raised those concerns with the staff of the
> then-Vice President Joe Biden."
> "That certainly raises questions again about what
> Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s business and why
> nothing was done about addressing the concern
> about Hunter’s conflicts by the Obama
> Kent also testified that he and other U.S.
> officials had long and abiding concerns about
> Burisma and corruption."
> 3rd source is almost all documented here are
> couple of highlights:"Hunter Biden and his
> Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple
> contacts with the Obama State Department during
> the 2016 election cycle, including one just a
> month before Vice President Joe Biden forced
> Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his
> son’s company for corruption, newly released
> memos show."
> "Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically
> invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason
> the State Department should help, according to a
> series of email exchanges among U.S. officials
> trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line
> for the email exchanges read simply
> 4th source is again almost all documented stuff,
> such as...."There also was a December 2015 New
> York Times story that raised the question of
> whether Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma posed a
> conflict of interest for the vice president,
> especially when Joe Biden was leading the fight
> against Ukrainian corruption while Hunter
> Biden’s firm was under investigation by
> Ukrainian prosecutors."
> So as I presented there is evidence.
Goddamn it, but the quotes that you have cut and pasted are claims, not evidence for those claims. It doesn't matter how many different ways your sources say Biden is corrupt, repeating the same claims again and again, doesn't magically create evidence. It makes the claims more repeated.
You know this.