Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please remind me in what sense Lutsenko was "playing Rudy."
If you ask me, from what I know about Lutsenko ( plus adding my own impression from that BBC video) - Lutsenko himself is corrupt like heck as well ( more so than Shokin ever was.) Yes, Lutsenko wanted to make himself useful for his overseers - Americans that is, to the new master that came in the office ( to Trump) in particular, but Lutsenko alone ( and information he was willing to provide)
A. Was/could have been skewed, since it intended to present HIM first of all in the best light
B. Incomplete and needed to be supplemented by other sources.
( And that's why one-man team "Rudy" was not enough in this case.)
How Ukrainian internecine politics found its way to a possible US impeachment proceeding is absolutely fascinating. Out of time today ... but for a brief (uncited) response that hopefully did not truncate your post.
I agree with your bold but do not follow your logic. We have this corrupt Ukrainian politician switching his stories from what would benefit him under Poroshenko to what would benefit him under Zelensky. That's on the Ukrainians, with Lutsenko now fired with unrelated charges brought against him.
You argue the Ukrainians should investigate the first version of Lutsenko's story. One now denied but told clearly for his own benefit to a Giuliani who wants to use it for his benefit in a US election. Why? Ukraine already dealt with Lutsenko. Zelensky doesn't want to be put into the middle of a US election - hence Trump's need to add sweeteners.
If there is any evidence of a Biden wrongdoing then the investigation need be from the US end - particularly to bring in Joe Biden for all that evidence would be in US files - with information on Hunter Biden at Burisma supplied as needed by Ukraine. How can anyone assert otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
"Long dormant"?
But the Ukrainian article from 2018 that I see here, is showing me that on 06/16/2015 the most poisonous probe has been opened by Shokin - i.e. the illegal permission that Burisma received to operate the chain of its enterprises.
I don't question Kasko's devotion to initial UK investigation into the money laundering by Burisma, but after THAT investigation has been closed, I can't say for sure how much access he had to the rest of files.
You need to remember, that Zlochevsky's ( and his corruption trail) leads to Poroshenko ( the president) himself. And that Igor Kolomoysky ( whose picture mistakenly or not) Glenn Beck puts as the REAL owner of Burisma in his video, was not some "warlord of Dnepropetrovsk," but this particular ( very politically influential oligarch) was the GOVERNOR of Dnepropetrovsk region, until he fell out with Poroshenko and was removed from this position.
Kolomoysky's "Privat Bank" ( that was nationalized during Poroshenko' s time in the office) is currently a reason for a major dispute between the IMF and Zelensky government.
But I digress somewhat.
So let's concentrate on the previous part of my post.
That Burisma investigation does appear to be wide-reaching (you say "the most poisonous probe"). It was requested by Ukrainian Parliament with evidence gathered by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NACB). The paperwork was only filed by Shokin; it may have returned at some point to a special prosecutorial unit within the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO). Neither Kasko nor Shokin nor Lutsenko appeared to have "much access" to those files much less influence over the investigation, even though the investigation later was formally closed by Lutsenko.
From what I've seen, my guess is the IMF loan guarantee process attempted to remove anti-corruption efforts from the continually corrupt GPO by creating the NACB. The NACB apparently had the ability to investigate but not to prosecute. There appeared to a "Chinese Firewall" between the NACB and the GPO.
IMHO, Kasko does not refer to the investigation because it was irrelevant for the Shokin - Giuliani charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
If you will take in consideration what Shokin ( and others) were saying that they were instructed by the Democrats (and the ambassador Jovanovich in particular as well,) WHOM to prosecute and HOW, that there was a list of "untouchable" people, then yes, most likely there WAS a list of "desirable" and "undesirable" people in Ukrainian government, and consensus among Democrats whom they wanted to be removed and people they wanted to keep.
( Sort of what like what you hear in the discussion between Nuland and Pyatt in that "F** the EU" tape.) And it had little to do with how professional these Ukrainians were/how well they were fulfilling their duties. It was all about how well they served their purpose for the Democrats and the whole anti-Russian project they've set in motion back in 2014.
Shokin apparently was one of the "unwanted" people.
So in this sense Biden's Senior brazen approach to "fire that son of the b**" was that brazen, because the decision was agreed upon in Dem's circles.
So let's concentrate on the previous part of my post.
State already debunked the untouchable list with Lutsenko now retracting that charge. That returns to my point that these are matters for US review. Marie Yovanovitch will testify before Congress next week. As for Democratic policy in Ukraine we have a Senate Foreign Relations Committee with oversight responsibility.
Trobesmom.
I am quoting just one sentence in your reply to me.
"In answer to your first question, not necessarily. Who knows why the second one didn't come out first? Maybe fear of recrimination, fear of something happening to their families, etc."
So, all of a sudden this new (fake) whistle blower number 2 isn't afraid of something happening to the family?
These people are now coming out of the woodwork in an effort to take down the president, and nothing more.
Where is Gloria Allread when we need her?
She is always at the side of these folks when they are trying to state s*it that didn't happen.
This whistle blower crap is as phony as all those women who report a sexual harassment years after it happened.
Same mind set behind them and this whistle blower crap.
I believe the dems are going to pay a huge price for this stupid charade.
They could well lose the house, and the 2020 election by their actions presently.
Bob.
I don't pretend to know the answers to your questions. I don't believe for one second that there is any "whistle blower crap." You can't make people see the evidence that is in front of them. I guess we'll all have to wait and see where it goes. I don't even care about the election at this point. At least the Dems stepped up and did the right thing in trying to stop Trump from an absolute overreach of power.
Another Intelligence Official might file a Whistleblower Complaint. This person has more direct information about Trump and Ukraine, that wasn't filed in the 1st Whistleblower's Complaint.
2nd intelligence official might submit whistleblower complaint
A second intelligence official with concerns and more direct knowledge regarding President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine is considering filing a whistleblower complaint...
Wait, wait, wait! How can this guy be a whistleblower? We already know what happened?
A witness? A collaborator? Another CIA guy?
Explain how there can be a second leaker, after the transcript has been released?
That is like saying, "we have a guy that knows what the Packers v. Cowboys score is."
Explain how there can be a second leaker, after the transcript has been released?
We don't know everything that happened. Documents still haven't been turned over and there are people that need to give depositions.
There is more than just the transcript regarding the impeachment investigation. There are meetings that took place with Guiliani and meetings that took place with ambassadors and who knows what other meetings . The transcript is just one piece of the puzzle and we only have the summary of the transcript right now. Is there another more detailed transcript? The investigation might find out that answer.
The 2nd whistleblower might have reveal more info about meetings or people involved or things that took place that the 1st whistleblower didn't report because the 1st whistleblower didn't know about it.
Could be someone from the WH that is the 2nd whistleblower. Could be a Republican that was picked by Trump to work in the WH.
How Ukrainian internecine politics found its way to a possible US impeachment proceeding is absolutely fascinating. Out of time today ... but for a brief (uncited) response that hopefully did not truncate your post.
I agree with your bold but do not follow your logic. We have this corrupt Ukrainian politician switching his stories from what would benefit him under Poroshenko to what would benefit him under Zelensky. That's on the Ukrainians, with Lutsenko now fired with unrelated charges brought against him.
You argue the Ukrainians should investigate the first version of Lutsenko's story.One now denied but told clearly for his own benefit to a Giuliani who wants to use it for his benefit in a US election.
To be honest, I am not even sure what "story" we are talking about.
When I made my comments, I made them on a basis of what I know so far about Lutsenko overall, and the way I perceive him. AND on my perception of Giuliani, ( that he wouldn't have been able to dig to the bottom of it all.)
Example; you are telling me that "State already debunked the untouchable list with Lutsenko now retracting that charge. That returns to my point that these are matters for US review. Marie Yovanovitch will testify before Congress next week."
So we ( and the *State*) might safely assume that there was no such thing as Jovanovich attempt to "put pressure on the officials of the sovereign state" ( isn't that what Trump was accused of lately?)
And I am sure that Jovanovich will make her darn best to present things this way while testifying before Congress. After all, if there was no "list" that Lutsenko was talking about, then she is innocent and free of such accusations.
But is it necessarily true?
Because as much as I think that Lutsenko needs to be checked and rechecked on one hand, on another hand he doesn't make an impression of a total idiot either, who'd blurt something like that ( "the list") out of a blue. Particularly that I've already heard the same charges - "They (Americans) were dictating to us what to do and how," ( that's coming from Shokin,) and "They were talking to us in the embassy like we were from some "banana republic" coming from others.
So I had to dig what this "list" ( or the absence of thereof) was all about. And while Lutsenko is retracting now his charge that THERE WAS such list, let's see now what REALLY happened, shall we?
Remember our friend Kasko? So here it goes;
"Mrs Jovanovich was interested in charges brought against Vitaliy Kasko. The problem was that Mr. Kasko has registered his mother ( who never left Lvov) in his official apartment in Kiev ( given to him by the GPO,) which is illegal.
According to Ms. Jovanovich, Kasko was one of the best activists fighting the corruption, and criminal cases opened against such people were discrediting them. I explained to her the details of the charges against him and told her that I can't open and close the criminal cases on a whim. I brought up the names of some other so-called "outstanding activists" that had criminal charges brought against them. She said that it was unacceptable, that it would discredit these activists. I took a sheet of paper, wrote down the names I just mentioned and asked her to give me the full list of people I shouldn't touch. "No, you didn't understand me correctly" she responded. Our meeting was over."
See how it goes? No list per se ( she was not that naive to leave any proof of her activities,) yet the *activities,* her involvement were clearly there.
Quote:
Why? Ukraine already dealt with Lutsenko. Zelensky doesn't want to be put into the middle of a US election - hence Trump's need to add sweeteners.
It doesn't matter already what Zelensky wants or doesn't want.
Within the last four years Ukraine has been effectively turned into the puppet state under external management, so Zelensky will do what the IMF will tell him to do, and what any current master of the White House will tell him to do.
Except for Trump's problem in this case was that "old master" ( i.e. Democrats) were still running that place (the Ukraine.)
Quote:
If there is any evidence of a Biden wrongdoing then the investigation need be from the US end - particularly to bring in Joe Biden for all that evidence would be in US files - with information on Hunter Biden at Burisma supplied as needed by Ukraine. How can anyone assert otherwise?
Oh but this would never work, because of the reasons I described above. And since no one could be really trusted in case of Ukraine ( as far as Trump was concerned, since that place was run by the Democrats for the last 4-5 years,) he decided to act through the person he trusted - i.e. his own lawyer.
Quote:
That Burisma investigation does appear to be wide-reaching (you say "the most poisonous probe").
I've said "most poisonous" because these particular charges could affect current operations of Burisma.
Not sure what "far reaching" means in this case.
Quote:
It was requested by Ukrainian Parliament with evidence gathered by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NACB). The paperwork was only filed by Shokin; it may have returned at some point to a special prosecutorial unit within the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO).
From my understanding, the preliminary investigation is conducted by the GPO; only then it's referred to NABU (NACB). Or not. ( Since NABU is involved only when high-ranking officials are in violation of the law (Zlochevsky happened to be one of them.)
Quote:
Neither Kasko nor Shokin nor Lutsenko appeared to have "much access" to those files much less influence over the investigation, even though the investigation later was formally closed by Lutsenko.
They have access to investigation at the first stage, until they transfer it to NABU. That's my understanding of how things work in Ukraine. ( But I can look more into it, what's the exact interaction between the PGO and NABU, and on what stage.)
Quote:
From what I've seen, my guess is the IMF loan guarantee process attempted to remove anti-corruption efforts from the continually corrupt GPO by creating the NACB. The NACB apparently had the ability to investigate but not to prosecute. There appeared to a "Chinese Firewall" between the NACB and the GPO.
He-he, the main source of corruption is the ability of Ukrainian state officials to channel money outside of the country ( particularly to the offshore accounts, where their trace is lost.) The criminal case opened by the UK against Burisma back in 2014 is a solid proof of it.
However the IMF is not interested in nipping the corruption at the bud. In fact, when the new Ukrainian government wanted to issue specifically such law, the IMF advised against it.
Quote:
IMHO, Kasko does not refer to the investigation because it was irrelevant for the Shokin - Giuliani charges.
I am not sure what do you mean by that.
Quote:
As for Democratic policy in Ukraine we have a Senate Foreign Relations Committee with oversight responsibility.
To be honest, I am not even sure what "story" we are talking about.
When I made my comments, I made them on a basis of what I know so far about Lutsenko overall, and the way I perceive him. AND on my perception of Giuliani, ( that he wouldn't have been able to dig to the bottom of it all.)
Example; you are telling me that "State already debunked the untouchable list with Lutsenko now retracting that charge. That returns to my point that these are matters for US review. Marie Yovanovitch will testify before Congress next week."
The first Lutsenko story is the one that Giuliani wanted to hear and took to Trump. Yes to State and the untouchable list.
So we ( and the *State*) might safely assume that there was no such thing as Jovanovich attempt to "put pressure on the officials of the sovereign state" ( isn't that what Trump was accused of lately?)
And I am sure that Jovanovich will make her darn best to present things this way while testifying before Congress. After all, if there was no "list" that Lutsenko was talking about, then she is innocent and free of such accusations.
Assume Jovanovich will say any actions were to carry out Obama Administration policies. There may well be diplomatic ethical standards that still should not be crossed. That is for State and I suppose Congress now to review. No personal knowledge. The contrast to Trump is she presumably was not using her Ambassadorship for her personal benefit (like, for example, taking a bribe.)
But is it necessarily true?
Because as much as I think that Lutsenko needs to be checked and rechecked on one hand, on another hand he doesn't make an impression of a total idiot either, who'd blurt something like that ( "the list") out of a blue. Particularly that I've already heard the same charges - "They (Americans) were dictating to us what to do and how," ( that's coming from Shokin,) and "They were talking to us in the embassy like we were from some "banana republic" coming from others.
So I had to dig what this "list" ( or the absence of thereof) was all about. And while Lutsenko is retracting now his charge that THERE WAS such list, let's see now what REALLY happened, shall we?
The details frequently are important, with depending on the language a case to be made either way.
Remember our friend Kasko? So here it goes;
"Mrs Jovanovich was interested in charges brought against Vitaliy Kasko. The problem was that Mr. Kasko has registered his mother ( who never left Lvov) in his official apartment in Kiev ( given to him by the GPO,) which is illegal.
According to Ms. Jovanovich, Kasko was one of the best activists fighting the corruption, and criminal cases opened against such people were discrediting them. I explained to her the details of the charges against him and told her that I can't open and close the criminal cases on a whim. I brought up the names of some other so-called "outstanding activists" that had criminal charges brought against them. She said that it was unacceptable, that it would discredit these activists. I took a sheet of paper, wrote down the names I just mentioned and asked her to give me the full list of people I shouldn't touch. "No, you didn't understand me correctly" she responded. Our meeting was over."
See how it goes? No list per se ( she was not that naive to leave any proof of her activities,) yet the *activities,* her involvement were clearly there.
Yes, I see your point which goes back to what I just wrote. We agree.
It doesn't matter already what Zelensky wants or doesn't want.
Within the last four years Ukraine has been effectively turned into the puppet state under external management, so Zelensky will do what the IMF will tell him to do, and what any current master of the White House will tell him to do.
What Zelensky wants - not to be connected to a specific US political party - does matter because it would lead to prevarication and stone-walling. In the end he - or another Ukrainian President - can be forced to comply using US strength - be that the loan guarantee, military aid, or a WH visit. Not sure of your point. Zelensky wasn't going to roll over unless Trump upped the ante - spoken or unspoken. That's the Democratic charge.
Except for Trump's problem in this case was that "old master" ( i.e. Democrats) were still running that place (the Ukraine.)
Oh but this would never work, because of the reasons I described above. And since no one could be really trusted in case of Ukraine ( as far as Trump was concerned, since that place was run by the Democrats for the last 4-5 years,) he decided to act through the person he trusted - i.e. his own lawyer.
If Trump wanted to dig dirt, then no one was objecting to Giuliani running around Ukraine. If the US embassy wasn't responsive then the Ambassador could be fired. Trump did that. That dismissal is only being questioned now post-Zelensky call. This has nothing to do with Trump's determination not to use the U.S. judicial system to request information. RudyG was over there during the Trump Presidency. He brought Barr in as AG earlier this year. Zelensky wasn't refusing to cooperate with US investigation - there was no US investigation. What does an earlier Democratic administration have to do with that? Sure, I get it's the explanation why there had been no Burisma-Biden investigation. But then DO one, per a US request.
I've said "most poisonous" because these particular charges could affect current operations of Burisma.
Not sure what "far reaching" means in this case.
Okay. Poisonous is good. For an investigation to even potentially be connected to Hunter Biden it must impact then-current operations. We agree.
From my understanding, the preliminary investigation is conducted by the GPO; only then it's referred to NABU (NACB). Or not. ( Since NABU is involved only when high-ranking officials are in violation of the law (Zlochevsky happened to be one of them.)
They have access to investigation at the first stage, until they transfer it to NABU. That's my understanding of how things work in Ukraine. ( But I can look more into it, what's the exact interaction between the PGO and NABU, and on what stage.)
The info I saw was that Shokin transferred it "immediately." With the request originating in Parliament, I took that (my inference) to mean the GPO initiation was simply pro forma.
About Shokin's inability to influence it - That came from from Lutsenko BBC interview. Probably also from the the anti-corruption advocate whom you question but whose name I can never recall (cites in the last thread). And another source? (cites in the last thread). Earlier you disagreed with Lutsenko's description of GPO-NABU process on the BBC video. Then referred to a separate within-GPO unit? I skimmed that quickly so won't now try to repeat your words. Best for you to do that!
He-he, the main source of corruption is the ability of Ukrainian state officials to channel money outside of the country ( particularly to the offshore accounts, where their trace is lost.) The criminal case opened by the UK against Burisma back in 2014 is a solid proof of it.
Makes sense.
However the IMF is not interested in nipping the corruption at the bud. In fact, when the new Ukrainian government wanted to issue specifically such law, the IMF advised against it.
My responses in italics. Again no cites due to time. I'll look at the video later. Usually I get stuff straight - or will qualify - but if not I'll let you know.
Generally speaking, I don't see anything from this discussion that supports Trump's original charge. The conflicts between the US embassy - IMF - Democratic policy aims and Ukraine are broad based. That certain parties restricted investigative activities to not taint anti-corruption advocates is not connected to Hunter Biden. It may have had the inadvertent impact of protecting Burisma-wrongdoing. But does it not support the Democratic position that Joe Biden did not act for the benefit of his son - either in firing Shokin OR from preventing investigative activity.
You now are off to look for information showing Shokin could have influenced the NACB investigation??? Not trying to move goal posts, but even that would need have to connect to a specific Hunter Biden threat. Per my above comment, there's still no information that Joe Biden acted on his own initiative - the contrary is true.
We don't know everything that happened. Documents still haven't been turned over and there are people that need to give depositions.
There is more than just the transcript regarding the impeachment investigation. There are meetings that took place with Guiliani and meetings that took place with ambassadors and who knows what other meetings . The transcript is just one piece of the puzzle and we only have the summary of the transcript right now. Is there another more detailed transcript? The investigation might find out that answer.
The 2nd whistleblower might have reveal more info about meetings or people involved or things that took place that the 1st whistleblower didn't report because the 1st whistleblower didn't know about it.
Could be someone from the WH that is the 2nd whistleblower. Could be a Republican that was picked by Trump to work in the WH.
It was a phone call. We all have the call.
What is this person blowing the whistle on. I have the call, you have the call. There is no whistle blower. NONE. We only have a CIA plant, feeding Adam Schiff BS, in a Trump set up to find the leakers.
It was a phone call. We all have the call.
What is this person blowing the whistle on. I have the call, you have the call. There is no whistle blower. NONE. We only have a CIA plant, feeding Adam Schiff BS, in a Trump set up to find the leakers.
I'm really disappointed that the Dims have only paid 2 Whistle Liars to make up a fictitious story of a phone call we already have the contents to....we know for a fact the Whistle Liars are lying and their pants are on fire, the Dims should pay a few more people to make up fictitious accounts of the phone call into the Biden corruption machine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
