It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Timeline of Trump Extorting a Foreign Country for Election Interference

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: xuenchen

Subject to the approved rules and the Constitution.


😃 👁️ 👃 👁️ 😃




posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   

edit on 4-11-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: sorry. Wrong topic



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There’s a lot of info out there about the fired prosecutor not being corrupt as they want us to believe.
Matter of fact it was quite to the contrary.
The prosecutor that took his place even said as much as did some of the Americans in the know.


Making a succession of false statements does not make them true.

All of the evidence, public reporting from the time and statements BEFORE the recent wingnut Propaganda started about Biden, thoroughly contradict your unsupported claims.

BTW, You never did answer my questions about Trump and how you say he is the most corrupt prez ever.
Prove it.



That is what Impeachment Trials are for.
You seem impatient.


That's not what they are there for.


They are there to punish people for opposing them politically.

The Whistle blower was almost certainly a diplomat in Ukraine, who was worried that if Zelensky did what was being asked of him then Ukraine would lose the support of the democrats in Congress, and get less funding. (Which would be a disaster for Ukraine, who doesn't have the financial power to fight the Russian backed partisans fighting in East Ukraine.)

However it is clearly NOT because our whistle blower believed Trump was acting outside the bounds of his own authority.

It is because he didn't like the decision Trump was making with that legitimate authority.


edit on 4-11-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: I said "democrat" but i meant "diplomat" They could just as easily have been a republican diplomat.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

THAT is an OPINION Piece by JOHN SOLOMON (Mentioned repeatedly in the Whistle-Blower complaint)

John Solomon, The author you are citing, is to Journalism what Rudy Giuliani is to the legal profession.

John Solomon is neck deep in the scandal. He was tasked with Promoting Rudy's Propaganda. He shares the Attorney that is representing the Russian Oligarch that was illegally contributing to GOP and Trump. He also worked closely with the two (now indicted) associates of Giuliani who were laundering those illegal foreign contributions to GOP. It just goes on and on. He was let go from the Hill for BS reporting on Ukraine and most of what he has reported has since been denied/retracted/walked back by those who he interviewed.



EXAMPLE


In Solomon’s March 20 interview with Yuriy Lutsenko, the then-Ukrainian prosecutor general made a series of wild claims, including accusing Biden of pressuring the then-Ukrainian president in 2016 to fire the country’s top prosecutor—at the time, Viktor Shokin—to squash an investigation into a Ukrainian gas company connected to Hunter Biden.

(Lutsenko would later retract some of the claims made to Solomon, eventually walking back his claims of wrongdoing by the Bidens, ultimately concluding: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws.”)

www.thedailybeast.com...

Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko admits U.S. ambassador didn't give him a do not prosecute list

Read more on UNIAN: www.unian.info...

Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens
www.bloomberg.com...

Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General: Hunter Biden ‘Did Not Violate Anything’
www.thedailybeast.com...

Lev Parnas, recently indicted for foreign influence in U.S. elections, collaborated closely with The Hill’s John Solomon to fuel spurious allegations involving the Bidens and Ukraine.
www.propublica.org...



Interviews and company records obtained by ProPublica show Parnas worked closely with Solomon to facilitate his reporting, including helping with translation and interviews. Solomon also shared files he obtained related to the Biden allegations with Parnas, according to a person familiar with the exchange. And the two men shared yet another only recently revealed connection: Solomon’s personal lawyers connected the journalist to Parnas and later hired the Florida businessman as a translator in their representation of a Ukrainian oligarch.




More than a year before his Ukraine columns published, The Hill had serious concerns about Solomon’s credibility and conflicts of interest. Hill staffers began raising alarms, including the paper’s publisher at the time, who warned in an internal memo that Solomon was engaged in “reputation killing stuff” by mixing business with journalism.

In response, The Hill’s management took steps to limit Solomon’s reporting — rebranding him as an opinion writer —




Solomon recalls first encountering Parnas through Pete Sessions, the once-powerful Texas Republican member of Congress who is now in the middle of the Trump impeachment inquiry.

Sessions accepted campaign donations from Parnas and Fruman, and had met with the two men as they sought to oust an American diplomat in Ukraine.

Later, Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging him to replace the envoy Marie Yovanovitch, who had been the subject of extensive criticism in the conservative media. She was later fired and is a key witness for House Democrats trying to impeach the president.


www.propublica.org...

Lawyers for Ukrainian oligarch have another client: The columnist who pushed Biden corruption claims
Conservative legal duo Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing represent gas tycoon Dmitry Firtash as well as the writer John Solomon.

www.politico.com...
edit on 4-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Extorris

ROFLMAO... Ironic since it is people like you whom want to have no borders in the U.S.


It is statements like this that confuse me.

It is like you are promoting your own ignorance and lack of credibility. Why?

So...Those that oppose a President using Military Aid to extort a Foreign Country to assist in his political campaign must want the United States to have no borders?

Seriously question: How does that thinking work?

Anti Extortion by a US President and Election Interference = Pro No US borders

White board that logic for.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I have two questions:

1) Is it illegal to ask government officials of another nation to investigate a U.S. citizen’s activities in that nation?

2) Is it illegal for a U.S. president or administration to withhold aid to a nation if it doesn’t comply with a demand or request, i.e., a quid pro quo?



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There’s a lot of info out there about the fired prosecutor not being corrupt as they want us to believe.
Matter of fact it was quite to the contrary.
The prosecutor that took his place even said as much as did some of the Americans in the know.


Making a succession of false statements does not make them true.

All of the evidence, public reporting from the time and statements BEFORE the recent wingnut Propaganda started about Biden, thoroughly contradict your unsupported claims.

BTW, You never did answer my questions about Trump and how you say he is the most corrupt prez ever.
Prove it.



That is what Impeachment Trials are for.
You seem impatient.


That's not what they are there for.

They are there to punish people for opposing them politically.


The Founding Fathers discussed this extensively in the Federalist Papers, Specifically No. 65.

Impeachment requires 2/3rds of the Senate to convict specifically as a bulwark to Partisan motives.



The Whistle blower was almost certainly a diplomat in Ukraine, who was worried that if Zelensky did what was being asked of him then Ukraine would lose the support of the democrats in Congress, and get less funding. (Which would be a disaster for Ukraine, who doesn't have the financial power to fight the Russian backed partisans fighting in East Ukraine.)

However it is clearly NOT because our whistle blower believed Trump was acting outside the bounds of his own authority.

It is because he didn't like the decision Trump was making with that legitimate authority.



It was clearly both and the WB Document and the Dozen plus Witnesses thus far have confirmed the same.

If the Ukrainian administration had granted Trump's demands to assist in his re-election campaign, they would have been guilty of foreign interference in a US Election and not only likely denied future Aid, but possibly even sanctioned.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scapegrace
I have two questions:

1) Is it illegal to ask government officials of another nation to investigate a U.S. citizen’s activities in that nation?


Who is doing the asking and why?
Who is the individual?
Based on what evidence?

Hint: AG Barr quickly said he knew nothing about it. Rudy's involvement and associated activity was covert. Sondland, Taylor and others were directed to work outside government record keeping processes and things that had to be documented (POTUS call with Zelenskey) was moved to Proprietary Secret File storage Systems.

The US and Ukraine actually has a cooperative agreement treaty.
It requires the AG to be responsible for requests. In this scenario AG Barr claims no knowledge.
It also forbids US Private Citizens from being involved. Rudy was point on this shadow operation.
It also requires a legitimate investigation to be conducted. AG Barr and DOJ had no knowledge of Trump's Biden ask according to DOJ and AG Barr.



2) Is it illegal for a U.S. president or administration to withhold aid to a nation if it doesn’t comply with a demand or request, i.e., a quid pro quo?


Yes if the QPQ involves asking for Foreign Assistance in a domestic re-election campaign.

Trump, Giuliani and associates were evidently aware of the same and thus tried to conduct the extortion outside of normal channels and over-sight.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scapegrace
I have two questions:

1) Is it illegal to ask government officials of another nation to investigate a U.S. citizen’s activities in that nation?



Here is one important clarification that people are not thinking about.

The "ask" was not really for an investigation.

The Demand was for the President of Ukraine to "Go on CNN" and announce an investigation into the Bidens in a statement approved by Rudy.

Think about the difference.

The demand wasn't to "Investigate Corruption"
The ultimate demand wasn't even to "Investigate Burisma/Biden", but that would have been good too.

The ask was for an ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation into Burisma/Bidens on CNN, right down to Rudy editing what the President of Ukraine had to say.

The difference being how that end product could be used by Trump.

An private investigation by Ukraine into Burisma/Bidens is not useful to trump's campaign.
An announcement from the President of Ukraine about an investigation into Burisma/Bidens is useful to Trump's campaign.

They even had Rudy telling them what the Statement had to include and editing a draft.



He described how diplomats and Giuliani pursued Trump’s demand that Zelenskiy go on CNN and announce of investigation of Biden. Taylor said Sondland told him that both military aid and a White House visit – “everything” – hinged on Zelenskiy’s willingness to announce the investigation. In the chats, Taylor repeatedly expressed alarm about the deal Sondland was trying to put together. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor wrote.

www.theguardian.com...



[8/9/19, 5:51:18 PM] Gordon Sondland: To avoid misundestandings, might be helpful to ask Andrey for a draft statememt (embargoed) so that we can see exactly what they propose to cover. Even though Ze does a live presser they can still summarize in a brief statement. Thoughts?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!

Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.

Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

[8/10/19, 4:56:15 PM] Andrey Yermak: Hi Kurt. Please let me know when you can talk. I think it’s possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations and our guarantees for future visit. Let discuss it

[8/10/19, 5:01:32 PM] Kurt Volker: Ok! It’s late for you—why don’t we talk in my morning, your afternoon tomorrow? Say 10am/5pm?

[8/10/19, 5:02:18 PM] Kurt Volker: I agree with your approach. Let’s iron out statement and use that to get date and then PreZ can go forward with it?

[8/10/19, 5:26:17 PM] Andrey Yermak: Ok

[8/10/19, 5:38:43 PM] Kurt Volker: Great. Gordon is available to join as well

[8/10/19, 5:41:45 PM] Andrey Yermak: Excellent

[8/10/ 19, 5:42:10 PM] Andrey Yermak: Once we have a date, will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US- UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations

[8/10/19, 5:42:30 PM] Kurt Volker: Sounds great!

[8/17/19, 3:06:19 PM] Gordon Sondland: Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?

[8/17/19, 4:34:21 PM] Kurt Volker: That’s the clear message so far ...

[8/17/19, 4:34:39 PM] Kurt Volker: I’m hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond with that

[8/17/19, 4:41:09 PM] Gordon Sondland: Unless you think otherwise I will return Andreys call tomorrow and suggest they send us a clean draft.

[9/8/19, 12:37:28 PM] Bill Taylor: The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There’s a lot of info out there about the fired prosecutor not being corrupt as they want us to believe.
Matter of fact it was quite to the contrary.
The prosecutor that took his place even said as much as did some of the Americans in the know.


Making a succession of false statements does not make them true.

All of the evidence, public reporting from the time and statements BEFORE the recent wingnut Propaganda started about Biden, thoroughly contradict your unsupported claims.

Yeah whatever, same goes for you. Do some homework.


I have done my homework, posted a dozen links from a decade ago to present.

Now support your BS.

I'll wait for links.



originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There’s a lot of info out there about the fired prosecutor not being corrupt as they want us to believe.
Matter of fact it was quite to the contrary.
The prosecutor that took his place even said as much as did some of the Americans in the know.






Now we have new evidence that Bidens sons company, Burisma, own defense attorneys show not only was the investigation ongoing after the prosecutor was fired, but they tried to set up a meeting with the new interim prosecutor the day the old one was fired, and did meet with him a week later These defense attorneys for Burisma admitted that Shokin, the fired prosecuotr, was not corrupt, and in fact was investigating Burisma very hard. And they apologized that us officials were spreading disinofrmation about Shokin Thats Bidens own sons companies lawyers, saying Biden lied, shokin was not corrupt.




three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.





They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,” the memo stated. The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”




You get that? Burisma, Bidens sons company that was being investigated, had its own lawyers meet with the new prosecutors one week after Shokin (the prosecutor biden had fired) was fired. They told the new prosecutor that US officals (Biden and company) were spreading lies about Shokin being corrupt, and that actually Shokin was aggressively investigated Bursimas owner. That meas Biden lied. So now we know Biden had the prosecutor looking into his osn fired, and Bidens sons companies own laywers say the reaosn biden gave for getting tha guy was a lie. SO why isnt there an investigation into Biden again? the media lied about this since 2016. They said the investigation into Bursima was over when biden had the prosecutor fire; that was a lie. We know that Bidens sons companies own lawyers say Biden lied aboutr Shokin being corrupt.


[url]https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

nice
now that it is out in the open we can see what a sham the house dems are attempting to run

too bad bidens son was such a crook



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There’s a lot of info out there about the fired prosecutor not being corrupt as they want us to believe.
Matter of fact it was quite to the contrary.
The prosecutor that took his place even said as much as did some of the Americans in the know.


Making a succession of false statements does not make them true.

All of the evidence, public reporting from the time and statements BEFORE the recent wingnut Propaganda started about Biden, thoroughly contradict your unsupported claims.

Yeah whatever, same goes for you. Do some homework.


I have done my homework, posted a dozen links from a decade ago to present.

Now support your BS.

I'll wait for links.



originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Wardaddy454

There’s a lot of info out there about the fired prosecutor not being corrupt as they want us to believe.
Matter of fact it was quite to the contrary.
The prosecutor that took his place even said as much as did some of the Americans in the know.






Now we have new evidence that Bidens sons company, Burisma, own defense attorneys show not only was the investigation ongoing after the prosecutor was fired, but they tried to set up a meeting with the new interim prosecutor the day the old one was fired, and did meet with him a week later These defense attorneys for Burisma admitted that Shokin, the fired prosecuotr, was not corrupt, and in fact was investigating Burisma very hard. And they apologized that us officials were spreading disinofrmation about Shokin Thats Bidens own sons companies lawyers, saying Biden lied, shokin was not corrupt.




three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.





They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,” the memo stated. The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”




You get that? Burisma, Bidens sons company that was being investigated, had its own lawyers meet with the new prosecutors one week after Shokin (the prosecutor biden had fired) was fired. They told the new prosecutor that US officals (Biden and company) were spreading lies about Shokin being corrupt, and that actually Shokin was aggressively investigated Bursimas owner. That meas Biden lied. So now we know Biden had the prosecutor looking into his osn fired, and Bidens sons companies own laywers say the reaosn biden gave for getting tha guy was a lie. SO why isnt there an investigation into Biden again? the media lied about this since 2016. They said the investigation into Bursima was over when biden had the prosecutor fire; that was a lie. We know that Bidens sons companies own lawyers say Biden lied aboutr Shokin being corrupt.


[url]https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

nice
now that it is out in the open we can see what a sham the house dems are attempting to run



Now that is out in the open the author of that article, John Solomon is likely under investigation along with the two recently indicted associated that worked with him on producing that now debunked nonsense for Rudy.

You should catch up.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



John Solomon is likely under investigation along with the two recently indicted associated that worked with him on producing that now debunked nonsense for Rudy.

source for such please
"likely"
lol
nice try



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



John Solomon is likely under investigation along with the two recently indicted associated that worked with him on producing that now debunked nonsense for Rudy.

source for such please



This page. Scroll up.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Here’s Shokin sworn statement
www.scribd.com...

I believe him long before I would believe anything that comes out of Bidens mouth. Shokin was asked to resign because he wouldn’t close the investigation against Burisma not because he wasn’t pursuing the corruption investigation of Burisma There’s a huge conflict of interest in regards to Biden, Hunter and Burisma. So odd that the case was shut down after Biden asked for Shokin’s resignation don’t you think? That case was reopened according to Shokin’s replacement.

I think you have to be extremely ignorant to believe Biden’s version of the narrative. If Biden wanted Shokin fired for lack of corruption investigations and indictments then why the hell were the investigations against Burisma supposedly closed after Shokin’s firing? That Biden version of the narrative stinks to high heaven and to not question it is beyond ignorant, especially with the Bidens profiting a substantial sum of money after the fact. But hey believe what you want to believe. I don’t buy it for a NY second, it smells corrupt and rotten as can be.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



John Solomon is likely under investigation along with the two recently indicted associated that worked with him on producing that now debunked nonsense for Rudy.

source for such please



This page. Scroll up.

there is no "likely" anything
you made that up

wow
hate what someone reports, then say they are "likely" under investigation
when there is no evidence of such

wow

thanks for that tho
another peek inside the bs



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder
Here’s Shokin sworn statement
www.scribd.com...

I believe him long before I would believe anything that comes out of Bidens mouth.


What VP Biden has to say is only a raindrop in the flood of evidence that Shoken was corrupt.

The "Witness Statement" you link to was obtained by lawyers on behalf of a corrupt criminal Ukranian Oligarch that is working with Giulliani (plus his two indicted associates) in order to get Bribery charges dropped by the USA.

THIS IS THE OLIGARCH WHO GOT SHOKEN TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT


Firtash, one of Ukraine’s wealthiest businessmen, is battling extradition by U.S. authorities on bribery charges from Vienna, where he has lived for five years.



AP Link

A different Quid Pro Quo, but no less illegal.


Indicted Giuliani associate worked on behalf of Ukrainian oligarch Firtash




One of the two Florida businessmen who helped U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal attorney investigate his political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, also has been working for the legal team of a Ukrainian oligarch who faces bribery charges in the United States,




Exclusive: How a Ukrainian Oligarch Wanted by U.S. Authorities Helped Giuliani Attack Biden
time.com...

THIS is where your doc originates


In their effort to discredit President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies, close allies of the President have received key documents and information from a Ukrainian oligarch wanted in the U.S. on corruption charges

...

The information came from the legal team of Dmitry Firtash, a wealthy industrialist with assets across Europe, who has spent the last five years in Vienna fighting extradition to the U.S. on bribery and racketeering charges.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in 2017 he was among the “upper echelon associates of Russian organized crime”






Over the last two months, a TIME investigation has traced some of Giuliani’s claims about Biden and Mueller to a troubling relationship, one in which a foreigner wanted by the U.S. government on corruption charges has taken steps, as part of his own legal strategy, that are helping the American President attack his most prominent critics.

time.com...




edit on 4-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



John Solomon is likely under investigation along with the two recently indicted associated that worked with him on producing that now debunked nonsense for Rudy.

source for such please



This page. Scroll up.

there is no "likely" anything
you made that up

wow
hate what someone reports, then say they are "likely" under investigation
when there is no evidence of such

wow

thanks for that tho
another peek inside the bs


His likelihood of being under investigation is not made up. It is my opinion given he worked with/for two gentleman currently under indictment and Rudy Giuliani as well as the attorneys for Oligarch Firtash wanted by US Authorities (see above) in order to produce material for the fake Biden narrative.

I did not represent it as "reporting" in text, excerpt, citation or substance.

You seen dishonest to your core. Not much use in responding to that kind of nonsense.


edit on 4-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



His likelihood of being under investigation is not made up. It is my opinion.

so it is made up
invented by you
nice



I did not represent it as "reporting" in text, excerpt, citation or substance.

lol really?


I posted


source for such please "likely" lol nice try


you posted


This page. Scroll up.

as if it were actually in the link
then to top it all off you go here




You seen dishonest to your core.

when YOU were the one to represent it was in the link above

thanks tho
at least now I know



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Yes, I’m aware of Fitash fleeing to the Russian Embassy in Vienna and the stalls of his extradition to the US. That doesn’t change the shadiness of Bidens involvement with Burisma or the fact Biden wanted the investigation of Burisma closed which it was. I’m curious about the level of tenacity of the investigation when it was supposedly reopened by Shokin’s replacement. If it was reopened in the manner Comey did with HRC it doesn’t mean a hill of beans besides appeasing a few, if it was reopened at all. Bidens involvement is also a good example of quid pro quo no matter how much he says differently, IMHO. Certainly a conflict of interest to say the least.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

If Biden wanted Shokin fired for lack of corruption investigations and indictments then why the hell were the investigations against Burisma supposedly closed after Shokin’s firing?


The investigations into Burisma (Or more accurately the Oligarch that owned Burisma) were shelved for over a year until Shoken was fired.



The facts of this story begin in April 2014, when Hunter Biden joined the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma Holdings, shortly after his business partner in an investment and consulting firm, Devon Archer, came aboard. Although Biden had no apparent expertise in the field, he had helped Burisma previously as a consultant with expertise in dealing with multinational regulations, and he was employed at a law firm retained by Burisma’s owner, former Ukrainian government official Mykola Zlochevsky.

When Biden joined Burisma’s board, both the company and Zlochevsky were already the subject of intense controversy. Zlochevsky had served as a top official for Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced out of office in early 2014, in part due to concerns over rampant corruption. Zlochevsky was accused of corruption as well, including for steering large government contracts to companies he owned.

One party investigating these allegations was the United Kingdom, because Zlochevsky had $23 million in a British bank account that UK officials believed has been laundered. Britain’s Serious Fraud Office froze that account, and shortly after Yanukovych left office in February 2014, sent a request to Ukrainian officials for documents it believed would help in prove its case. Following this request, the new Ukrainian government began its own investigation into Zlochevsky, looking into whether he embezzled public money.

In the midst of these troubles, Hunter Biden accepted a Burisma board seat, and was paid for his trouble, sometimes as much as $50,000 per month. It is unclear what he did for the company. Burisma said at the time that Biden — a lawyer — would be “in charge of” a legal unit. Biden told the New York Times in May 2019 that this was incorrect: “At no time was I in charge of the company’s legal affairs.”

Though none of this looks great for the Bidens, it is, unfortunately, routine business in Washington to hire the family members of powerful officials in hopes of gaining influence over public policy. For example, President Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy; President George W. Bush’s brother, Neil; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham were all involved in business interests that once drew concern.

Meanwhile, the UK and Ukraine continued to investigate Zlochevsky and other Yanukovych officials, often with the support of the US. But eventually, British investigators began to grow frustrated with what they characterized as a lack of cooperation from their Ukrainian counterparts, saying needed documents weren’t being provided.

The US became increasingly involved in the issue, and by December 2014, had sent a letter warning the new government would be forced to face unpleasant consequences if it didn’t do more to aid the UK. That threat went unheeded, and by 2015, British officials were forced to release the frozen funds, which Zlochevsky immediately moved to Cyprus, according to Bloomberg.

Joe Biden played a role in pushing out Ukraine’s prosecutor general
The part of the story that involves Joe Biden directly centers on the ouster of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.

In February 2015, Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, and promised critics of his country’s anti-corruption efforts at home, in the US, and at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that a clean-up was on the way. And he claimed Burisma was in his sights. (recently)

But Shokin’s deputy, Vitaly Kasko, told Bloomberg that the promise was empty rhetoric. According to Kasko, their office did nothing to pursue its investigation into Zlochevsky throughout 2015, and the office was ineffective at reining in corruption generally, leading him to resign in frustration.

Shokin has disputed Kasko’s narrative, but the manner in which he was running his office also concerned the US ambassador to Ukraine, who said publicly in September 2015 that the office was “subverting” the UK’s investigation.

Concern at the embassy mounted, and by 2016, officials there began suggesting the Obama administration push for the prosecutor general’s ouster. In particular, the embassy suggested that $1 billion in loan guarantees the country hoped to receive from the US in order to stay solvent should be tied to a tougher anti-corruption strategy that involved removing officials seen as blocking progress, namely Shokin.

It wasn’t just the US that wanted Shokin gone, either — many other Western European officials, including the IMF’s then-managing director Christine Lagarde, also insisted Ukraine was doing far too little about corruption.

So in March 2016, Biden says he told the Ukrainian government that their loan guarantees would be cut off unless they removed Shokin.




But though Biden may have taken credit for it, this was hardly his unique idea. “Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

The people of Ukraine wanted Shokin gone as well, and demonstrated for his removal around the time of Biden’s threat. Shortly after that demonstration, Shokin was dismissed.


www.vox.com... plaint




top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join