WaPo are just using Daria because she was cited in the same article Pam is cherry picking from. Bondi is misleading the public, because as me and you know Shokin's firing was something much of the western world wanted as he was corrupt. Pam should probably mention all of the facts (Like....umm....the actual reason Shokin was ousted), but she didn't because she wanted to paint a different picture.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-on-biden-and-ukraine/

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Prosecutor General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”

(Biden did not say when he made the threat to withhold U.S. assistance, but he addressed the Ukrainian Parliament in Kyiv on Dec. 9, 2015, and held out the prospect of future U.S. aid if the country rid itself of the “cancer of corruption.”)

Around this time, the International Monetary Fund also withheld financial assistance from Ukraine until it took steps to tackle corruption, and the anti-corruption group Transparency International Ukraine held Shokin “personally responsible for the breakdown in the fight against corruption in Ukraine.”

Olesia Koval, a spokeswoman for TI Ukraine, told us in an email that her group was “involved in the campaign against Shokin because of his ineffectiveness and sabotage of corruption fight, especially of the cases of grand political corruption and in particular Zlochevskyi’s case” — referring to Mykola Zlochevsky, president of Burisma.

In February 2016, Aivaras Abromavičius, the country’s economic minister, resigned to protest government corruption, prompting the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus to send a letter to Poroshenko urging him “to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.”

A month later, Shokin was removed from office.

It's not really disputed. Daria is generally correct although I would use better citation than her. They only used her, again, due to Pam's choice of article. There is a wealth of information proving the general claim correct.

Read it from reliable fact checkers all saying the same thing.

Pam was pushing a debunked conspiracy theory through misleading statements and not stating the facts of what actually happened. This is shown word for word by multiple fact checkers which you are incapable of refuting.

As long as you back up each point with citation, sure. Show me how every single fact-check paragraph in each of those 3 links was false.

Something tells me, as we've already seen, you won't do that.

You do know that crying about my links doesn't make the facts within them go away right? Do you just want me to paraphrase the articles? Would that make your defeat feel more earned?

This has already been fact checked in it's particular use as misleading. You can in no way refute the above fact checks.

You're posting it for the same reason Pam did. Nasty.

She's pushing an objectively debunked conspiracy theory. She's lying at worst, strongly misleading at the least. You know why she is posting that video and leaving out key details on Shokin.

She is quite literally trying to mislead the public on Joe Biden's firing of Shokin.

I answered this question in 3 posts so far, once before you even asked it. This will be the fourth post I answer this question.

At one point, though, Bondi focused on an allegation against Biden that’s been repeatedly debunked, sharing untrue claims as though they’d never been assessed for veracity at all.

That allegation focused on a panel discussion Biden participated in after having left office. He was describing how in 2015 he pushed for the firing of Viktor Shokin who, at the time, was Ukraine’s prosecutor general.

“Years later,” Bondi said, “now-former vice president Biden publicly details what we know happened: his threat to withhold more than a billion dollars in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.”

She showed a snippet of Biden relating that threat at a Council on Foreign Relations event in 2018. In the video, Biden offers the threat: Fire Shokin or the United States won’t provide loan guarantees to Ukraine.

“What he didn’t say on that video?” Bondi continued. “According to the New York Times, this was the prosecutor investigating Burisma: Shokin. What he also didn’t say on the video was that his son was being paid significant amounts by the oligarch owner of Burisma to sit on that board.”

But hers is a wildly misleading presentation of what happened.

Shokin was under fire from a number of international organizations and leaders at the time that Biden leveraged U.S. aid to call for his firing. He was seen by the administration of Barack Obama and others as problematic for his failure to vigorously investigate corruption.

In fact, in the same July 22 Post article Bondi cited, a representative of a Ukrainian anti-corruption organization pointed to Shokin’s failure to prosecute Burisma as evidence of his ineffectuality.

“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Post. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.

Notice that the quotes she isolated from that article were The Post quoting Shokin. It was Shokin who told The Post that he got fired because he was focused on Burisma, a perfect example of an unreliable narrator.

Surely you are not a complete idiot and see how mis-leading this all was. Are you suggesting the above facts are incorrect?

It's time you started answering some questions too, and not just keep losing debates.

This looks like I directly answered your question, are you ESL? You just didn't like the facts I presented after answering your question.

How come I answered your silly questions, but you're ignoring my questions on Pam's lies about Biden?

I answered your question 3 times, and moved past it. You're upset that after answering it, I moved on decimate Pam on her entire Speech.

I'm reduced to "debunked conspiracy theories" because that's literally what Pam did next. Perhaps you should have watched more than 3 minutes of her speech. I am indeed "reduced" to stating simple facts.

Perhaps you should stop getting upset at me for insulting Pam with the "Alex Jones" remark, and work on debunking the links I provided showing she was objectively lying? Just a thought. I guess it's easier to home in on my humerus quip than my citations.

Here, i'll let you try again: