I'm not sure what other facts you're looking for??

I gave you the facts that I have that prove the situation to me. Perhaps you require some sort of extra tangential proof? But, I have no idea what to provide to you so that you can see that the situation with Burisma and the Bidens was actually during Joe's time in the WH.

edit to add:

The argument that you are actually making with your points is so beyond lame as to be pretty worthless. You might think that you are arguing for a particular subject, but what you are actually arguing, the point that you are actually making is that the Bidens haven't engaged in any fraudulent activity because people were demanding that the Prosecutor resign years before.

Your argument is BAD.

You are using the fact that the Prosecutor was already being investigated or whatever as the basis for your ENTIRE claim. I am using it as a point of reference.

Here is my thought process...

I originally saw the video where Biden said that he was witholding funds from Ukraine until the Prosecutor was fired. Well guess what, that Prosecutor was then fired.

Odd things for a VP to threaten... let's investigate. And I did. But you seem to be stuck on the timeline and the Prosecutor.

I'm not sure what other facts you're looking for??

I gave you the facts that I have that prove the situation to me. Perhaps you require some sort of extra tangential proof? But, I have no idea what to provide to you so that you can see that the situation with Burisma and the Bidens was actually during Joe's time in the WH.