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.

 

BOOM: Burisma Plead With US State Dept For Help, Invoked Hunter Biden

page: 4
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Burisma tax investigation ended when they paid a settlement 2016. I don't think the Brits gave a # about that.




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Zlochevsky was under investigation for illicit enrichment by giving his own company deals while he was the energy minister. Not just tax problems.

ETA: let me expand this thought for those who might be a little behind:

Zlochevsky was the energy minister (or whatever it's called). He also owned a bunch of businesses, including burisma and privat bank (ukraine's largest bank).
The US gave $1.8B to the ukrainian government in aid for energy purpopses.
As energy minister, zlochevsky directed that aid to burisma, his energy company
Burisma then deposited that money into privat bank, owned by zlochevsky
A few months later privat bank reported they had "lost" $1.8B

This has happened multiple times with this guy. Some of the money has been found in his personal accounts in the UK. That money was also from the same situation, but the aid was from the IMF, not the US.

For more info, see my thread here
edit on 5-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple


I don't think the Brits gave a # about that.
You're right but that's Burisma, not Zlochevsky.

Right?



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




is not really material if we have the evidence (which is mounting)

A request for a meeting is evidence of what, exactly?

edit on 11/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Really? You can't discuss without insults? Pathetic...

On topic: it was loan guarantees Biden withheld. You know that's not the same as "aid" right?



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite
&
a reply to: Phage

Right legally it's important to keep them seperate, the man and the company



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Hard to do sometimes. Especially when one is the owner as well as the government official in charge of giving business to the company.

edit on 11/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple



You can't discuss without insults?


Where was the insult? Telling you you're wrong isn't an insult.




it was loan guarantees Biden withheld. You know that's not the same as "aid" right?



... really? that's what you're going with? "Loan guarantees aren't aid!" YAWN



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In 2018 120th out of 180 on the Transparency International index. So yeah it's pretty bad.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Could be worse.

More than two-thirds of countries score below 50 on this year’s CPI, with an average score of just 43.
www.transparency.org...

And the Pentagon seems to have thought things were improving. But what do they know? Right?
www.foxnews.com...
edit on 11/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Evidence that they were communicating with the state department about their corruption charges. Means, motive, and opportunity, phage. They have a meeting with the secretary of state on march 1. March 2, devon archer meets with SoS. March 29, shokin is fired.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes. Shokin seems to have not been doing his job. Seems there was concern about that for a while. In the UK and elsewhere.
www.atlanticcouncil.org...
www.aljazeera.com...
www.rferl.org...

edit on 11/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
With where this discussion is headed I think it's a prudent time to make it known that both shokin and lutsenko have said that the US was telling them who they could and could not prosecute.

Lutsenko told by obama's ambassador

Ukraine CBP (top cop) told by obama himself

EDIT: Also the kent letter undercuts the links you posted, along with the above two here.

EDIT2: If Obama-biden fired him for not looking into burisma, why was he telling shokin and other prosecutors they weren't allowed to? Why was Obama's ambassador telling his successor he wasn't allowed to?
edit on 5-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

In regard to your first souce, you know that Lutsenko has said that he was not given any list? He asked for one but Yovanovitch declined his request.
www.unian.info...

Your second source is Solomon.



EDIT2: If Obama-biden fired him for not looking into burisma, why was he telling him he wasn't allowed to? Why was Obama's ambassador telling his successor he wasn't allowed to?
Were they? Do you believe Telizhenko?
www.theglobeandmail.com...
edit on 11/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



In regard to your first souce, you know that Lutsenko has said that he was not given any list? He asked for one but Yovanovitch declined his request.


So?



Your second source is Solomon.

Source ad homs are not a valid rebuttal. Solomon is a solid reporter, whether you like him or not. He's been the only one digging on this issue.



Were they? Do you believe Telizhenko?


We have, shokin, lutsenko, telizhenko, and kulyk all telling us the same story. shokin and telizhenko got word from obama directly. This was confirmed by what was seen by kulyk. lutsenko got told by yavonovitch. So we have four sources saying the obama admin told them all the same thing: Stay away from burisma/zlochevsky.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




So?

So, he walked his claim back. He was not given a list.


Source ad homs are not a valid rebuttal
I made no personal attack. It's an op-ed. Typical of Solomon. Unnamed sources and all.


lutsenko got told by yavonovitch.
Got told what?


So we have four sources saying the obama admin told them all the same thing:
No. You have Telizhenko and Kulyk; Shokin toadies making nice for Guliani and Trump.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Here's the problem with this, uh, line of thought.

Joe Biden didn't make any decisions about anything.

The US and EU were both lobbying Ukraine to get rid of Shokin and he was removed by Ukraine's parliament.

Now, aside from those facts, have fun.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



So, he walked his claim back. He was not given a list.


No, he clarified his claim that he wasn't given a list, rather he was told who not to prosecute. When he asked for a list she wouldn't give him one.



I made no personal attack.


An ad-hom is more than a personal attack. A source ad-hom is exactly what you did. Rather than addressing substance you address the source. It's not a valid rebuttal.



It's an op-ed. Typical of Solomon. Unnamed sources and all.


You didn't read it then. It names many sources and people.



Got told what?


Who he wasn't allowed to prosecute.



No. You have Telizhenko and Kulyk;


I have lutsenko, telizhenko, shokin, and kulyk.



Shokin toadies making nice for Guliani and Trump.

Got any evidence for that?



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Joe Biden didn't make any decisions about anything.


So it was obama then?



The US and EU were both lobbying Ukraine to get rid of Shokin


Oh boy, are you behind on the news or what!? Kent's testimony destroys that narrative. As does the reporting by solomon. As does the emails in this OP.



and he was removed by Ukraine's parliament.


Formally, sure. Didn't stop biden from taking credit for it.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Joe Biden didn't make any decisions about anything.


Bidens own words:
"I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko''

''I told him ya not getting a billion dollars''

''I said we're leaving here in 6 hours if the prosecutors not fired ya not getting the money''

Sure sounds like Joe was giving instruction and demands to Ukraine, withholding a billion in aide unless a prosecutors fired. That in itself isn't really that bad and probably happens quite a bit when the US want to push around their clout.

The bad stinky warts and all part you want to pretend isn't related... is that his son was making a fortune from a company being investigated by -yep you guessed it- that prosecutor!

This is clear cut quid quo pro, a clear effort by a politician to influence legal processes in a foreign country to protect his families personal interests.. and he did it in the name of the US Government. Slam dunk case of corruption.

I am completely dumbfounded how people can compare what Biden did in Ukraine and what Trump said on a phone call to Ukraine.... and conclude Trump should be impeached.



edit on 5/11/19 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join