President Trump was required by a Treaty to pursue Biden's Corruption

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by erasure

Gotcha.

I have the earlier article in front of me, (03. 15. 2018) that gives as much info as possible.

In reality there were not "3 candidates," but the whopping 6 described there - i.e. 6 criminal cases in total opened against Burisma. "4 of them are closed, two are still dormant" - that's the headline of the article. There are too many details, too much to translate, and most of them concern Yarema ( the prosecutor general before Shokin) and Lutsenko ( they were the ones who were closing and opening them.

However from what I see, the criminal case #2, the charges brought by Shokin ( he opened the case on 06.16 2015 and it was closed only in 08.2017, and not by Shokin, but by his deputy, the head of the "Special anti-corruption department," Nazar Kholodnitsky.

And from what I see, this particular case opened by Victor Shokin, would be particularly damaging not just for Zlochevsky, but for Burisma as a company ( and thus directly for Hunter Biden's interests, being the payee of this company.)

So what this particular criminal case opened by Shokin against Burisma was all about?

You need to remember that back in 2010-2012 Zlochevksy was a Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. So Shokin charged him with illegal special permission that Zlochevsky issued to a number of enterprises, of which "he was a beneficiary."
And that's what Shokin charged him with back in 2015.

And from that point on Biden senior was demanding his removal.

1. Shokin in that case was no threat to Burisma. It's been discussed in this thread (provided cites). Case requested by Parliament. The GPO only handled some technical paperwork. Then the case was "immediately" transferred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau where Shokin could not touch it. Lutsenkov kept explaining on that video to Giuliani that he had no power over that Bureau. That the Bureau and the GPO were completely separate. Provided a fair amount of detail.

2. And this is Lutsenkov's point (where we seem to keep miscommunicating). Even IF Shokin had been involved, Hunter Biden could not be dragged into wrongdoing committed in 2010-12 - even if the investigation was opened 3 years later. That's how it works in the US and - again per Lutsenkov - Ukrainian law appears comparable. That Burisma might go under (I've seen that argument) potentially cutting off Biden's paycheck appears a stretch. But then again see no. 1.

The potentially relevant investigation appears to be the dormant money-laundering investigation that Shokin opened in response to the UK request.

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by EveryLady

This was to have ended an hour ago. But it's been found. Your missing investigation. The dormant investigation against Burisma. The one that both Bloomberg (per viewing court filings) and the WSJ said Shokin left inactive. The prosecutor who was fired because he wasn't investigating.

That's what was in the IG package that went to Congress. The Shokin-Guiliani story of why he wasn't investigating. Intimidation from multiple U.S. ambassadors. An elaborate phone interview with Shokin in January 2019. I've only skimmed ... Assertions why the U.S. ambassador denied him a visa (Biden told her to - could that be right - he wouldn't have been in office - its getting late - maybe on his behalf) ... A U.S. embassy do-not-investigate-company-list.

Rudy packaged it up and sent it anonymously to Pompeo? Or some came from the WH? It circulated for a bit within State. Career State officers looked into the material that directly impacted Marie Yovanovitch - and supposedly debunked it. Then added their notes to the file. No one knew what to do with the Biden material.

And there it sat, until yesterday. You can't make this stuff up.

IMHO (open to correction): This is a key part of the RudyG Dossier. But it falls apart, which is why so many entities pronounce his theories poppycock.

Lots of outlets now looking into Shokin. They hold him responsible for torpedoing the UK money laundering investigation (per our earlier discussion). That he was taking no action on the subsequent Ukrainian money laundering (???) investigation opened in response to the UK request hardly surprises.

Why? Whoever paid off Shokin on the UK end or whatever advantage he gained continued for not investigating on the Ukrainian end. Or (your theory) that Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was a subtle "do not touch." Maybe both. Shokin's established pattern of corruption and not investigating extends beyond Burisma.

I've pretty much satisfied myself here. Here's an extract from a post to another thread. Feel free to disagree or correct. Hopefully later I can take another look at the article you attached (found it intriguing, and relevant - how did this happen).

Here goes:
That RudyG's claims were so weak reinforces Trump's desperate need to extract that favor from Zelensky.

Today, CNN further turned the Biden story into nonsense. Turns out that not only the Obama Administration (along with the EU, IMF, Ukrainian reformers) pushed Shokin out - so did Republicans. :

A newly unearthed letter from 2016 shows that Republican senators pushed for reforms to Ukraine's prosecutor general's office and judiciary, echoing calls then-Vice President Joe Biden made at the time.

CNN's KFile found a February 2016 bipartisan letter signed by several Republican senators that urged then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to "press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/polit...ile/index.html

Joe Biden went to Kiev in December 2015. The Congressional letter is dated February 2016. The Ukrainian Parliament finally removed Shokin in March 2016. It looks like Joe's boasting was a bit premature, although no doubt the message he sent about the loan guarantee played a major role.

The RudyG dossier may actually support the story that Biden was not acting to protect his son - which once again points to Trump's need for that Zelensky-inspired investigation. One of the documents that RudyG flashes is "proof" Shokin (the fired prosecutor) was going after Burisma (where Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors). True, that - in February 2016, Shokin finally filed a motion in a previously-inactive investigation. This is from Solomon (opinion writer, The Hill - a purveyor of the RudyG Dossier).

What does that mean? Shokin like a good little corrupt prosecutor had been doing nothing against Burisma. Until Joe Biden passed along the proposal to fire him. At which point he reactivated the investigation. Oops!

RudyG like as a conspiracist throws around various paper facts. But then uses them to create totally distorted pictures.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Trump has nothing to run on in 2020. His main achievement is a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. He managed to bring back a trillion dollar deficit. So now him and his cronies have to make up some crap about Biden that makes literally no sense. Trump is cooked.

Correction: tax cut for more than 80% of taxpayers.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by EveryLady

1. Shokin in that case was no threat to Burisma. It's been discussed in this thread (provided cites).

These cites (ABC, CNN, Bloomberg et al) and everything that's written on them lately can't be trusted. Either they are misleading on purpose, or the journalists that write them are not competent enough.

Even that BBC interview with Lutzenko you posted is questionable.
Remember he mentioned that there were 3 cases opened against Burisma?

But the older Ukrainian article says 6.

And the one that Shokin was investigating from back 2010-2012 was potentially the most poisonous for Burisma ( not just his owner) if you ask me.



"The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma."



So while being a Minister of Ecology, Zlochevsky granted permission to his own company "the usage of natural resources," basically.
Was Burisma still operating on the basis of these illegal permissions? And even if not, did it owe huge fines for the illegality of operation in the past?

Either way this was directly affecting the company that Hunter Biden worked for, even after 2010-2012.

Case requested by Parliament. The GPO only handled some technical paperwork. Then the case was "immediately" transferred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau where Shokin could not touch it. Lutsenkov kept explaining on that video to Giuliani that he had no power over that Bureau. That the Bureau and the GPO were completely separate. Provided a fair amount of detail.

Yet again - not exactly. Lutsenko was referring to NABU, but in fact the General Prosecutor's office had its own Specialized Anti-Corruption Unit ( or SAP) And for some reason or the other, Shokin passed one of the cases directly to SAP instead of NABU. "Why" would you ask? There can be a number of explanations. See, the heads of both - Sytnik and Kholodnitsky are both notoriously corrupt, and they were at war with each other.

Shokin ( for his own reasons) could have trusted more to people in one organization over the other.

Another thing I want to mention, is I came across the names of the heads of both departments ( Sytnik and Kholodnitsky) as utterly corrupt people in quite a few blogs, ( where people knew what they were talking about.) But I've never heard Shokin's name before. So he was most likely more benign comparably to many others, when it comes to corruption.. Yet Joe Biden targeted him out of all people.

Yep, this is suspicious to say the least.

2. And this is Lutsenkov's point (where we seem to keep miscommunicating). Even IF Shokin had been involved, Hunter Biden could not be dragged into wrongdoing committed in 2010-12 - even if the investigation was opened 3 years later. That's how it works in the US and - again per Lutsenkov - Ukrainian law appears comparable. That Burisma might go under (I've seen that argument) potentially cutting off Biden's paycheck appears a stretch. But then again see no. 1.

See what I wrote above.

The potentially relevant investigation appears to be the dormant money-laundering investigation that Shokin opened in response to the UK request.

Nope, there was someone different in charge of THAT investigation, ( namely investigator V. Kasko) and look at the reason why ( and how) the case in UK has been closed.

Shokin was appointed as Prosecutor General only in 2015, and even if you point me that he was appointed as DEPUTY already back in 2014 ( end of June?), where are the proofs that he was appointed for money-laundering investigation, or that he was that mysterious "someone" that wrote the letter from Ukrainian side, clearing Burisma of any wrongdoings?

Because THIS would be a proven case of corruption against him, since one of the investigators in SAP ( namely V. Kasko) was already working his butt off ( if to believe the Guardian) at that time to prove the charges.


So as you can see, American mainstream media is muddying the waters today with its recent articles, and the way I see it, Trump/Giuliani simply didn't have sufficient time to dig into it all, or they couldn't find the right people to question ( other than Shokin) or they didn't know how to ask the right questions.
And if they'd go with inquiries/investigation the official rout, they'd be firewalled by Democrats, that were running that place ( Ukraine that is) from 2014. (Plus Kurt Volker, McCain's man.)

Ultimately of course, they could have asked directly former president Poroshenko himself ( as Reuters suggest) whether he or Yatzenuk ( then Prime-Minister) were blackmailed with IMF loans, but don't forget that those were the people that stood behind the collusion of Clinton and Ukrainian government back in 2016, since they were bidding on Democrats, and Poroshenko's Ukraine was the country that supplied the requested dirt of Manafort.

So precisely as the Reuters state -

"Kholodnytsky said that were Poroshenko to make a statement about being pressured into removing Shokin from his post, then an investigation must be launched.
However, he said, neither his agency nor the NABU had received such a statement thus far"

Make your wild guess why.

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by erasure

These cites (ABC, CNN, Bloomberg et al) and everything that's written on them lately can't be trusted. Either they are misleading on purpose, or the journalists that write them are not competent enough.

Even that BBC interview with Lutzenko you posted is questionable.
Remember he mentioned that there were 3 cases opened against Burisma?

But the older Ukrainian article says 6.

And the one that Shokin was investigating from back 2010-2012 was potentially the most poisonous for Burisma ( not just his owner) if you ask me.


"The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma."


So while being a Minister of Ecology, Zlochevsky granted permission to his own company "the usage of natural resources," basically.
Was Burisma still operating on the basis of these illegal permissions? And even if not, did it owe huge fines for the illegality of operation in the past?

Either way this was directly affecting the company that Hunter Biden worked for, even after 2010-2012.


Yet again - not exactly. Lutsenko was referring to NABU, but in fact the General Prosecutor's office had its own Specialized Anti-Corruption Unit ( or SAP) And for some reason or the other, Shokin passed one of the cases directly to SAP instead of NABU. "Why" would you ask? There can be a number of explanations. See, the heads of both - Sytnik and Kholodnitsky are both notoriously corrupt, and they were at war with each other.

Shokin ( for his own reasons) could have trusted more to people in one organization over the other.

Another thing I want to mention, is I came across the names of the heads of both departments ( Sytnik and Kholodnitsky) as utterly corrupt people in quite a few blogs, ( where people knew what they were talking about.) But I've never heard Shokin's name before. So he was most likely more benign comparably to many others, when it comes to corruption.. Yet Joe Biden targeted him out of all people[/u].

Yep, this is suspicious to say the least.


See what I wrote above.

Nope, there was someone different in charge of THAT investigation, ( namely investigator V. Kasko) and look at the reason why ( and how) the case in UK has been closed.

Shokin was appointed as Prosecutor General only in 2015, and even if you point me that he was appointed as DEPUTY already back in 2014 ( end of June?), where are the proofs that he was appointed for money-laundering investigation, or that he was that mysterious "someone" that wrote the letter from Ukrainian side, clearing Burisma of any wrongdoings?

Because THIS would be a proven case of corruption against him, since one of the investigators in SAP ( namely V. Kasko) was already working his butt off ( if to believe the Guardian) at that time to prove the charges.


So as you can see, American mainstream media is muddying the waters today with its recent articles, and the way I see it, Trump/Giuliani simply didn't have sufficient time to dig into it all, or they couldn't find the right people to question ( other than Shokin) or they didn't know how to ask the right questions.
And if they'd go with inquiries/investigation the official rout, they'd be firewalled by Democrats, that were running that place ( Ukraine that is) from 2014. (Plus Kurt Volker, McCain's man.)

Ultimately of course, they could have asked directly former president Poroshenko himself ( as Reuters suggest) whether he or Yatzenuk ( then Prime-Minister) were blackmailed with IMF loans, but don't forget that those were the people that stood behind the collusion of Clinton and Ukrainian government back in 2016, since they were bidding on Democrats, and Poroshenko's Ukraine was the country that supplied the requested dirt of Manafort.

So precisely as the Reuters state -

"Kholodnytsky said that were Poroshenko to make a statement about being pressured into removing Shokin from his post, then an investigation must be launched.
However, he said, neither his agency nor the NABU had received such a statement thus far"

Make your wild guess why.

Thank you for this response. It's interesting to read the various perspectives, particularly yours since you follow foreign-language sources. My general take: My bolds demonstrate the complexity of Ukrainian politics. Why are we to believe that Giuliani could keep the players straight? And this doesn't even take into account the role of the Ukrainian courts, that he appears to totally overlook. Witness credibility is an issue in any American Court. For example, I attached a cite in another thread post that Poroshenko himself has been tied to Zlochevsky.

To respond to some of your question / comments: Was Burisma still operating on the basis of these illegal permissions? And even if not, did it owe huge fines for the illegality of operation in the past? Responded to in another recent thread. I find the point irrelevant.

So he [Shokin] was most likely more benign comparably to many others, when it comes to corruption.. Yet Joe Biden targeted him out of all people - Shokin was the boss. The Prosecutor General. A closer look shows this was a move to reform the Prosecutor General Office, with no doubt widespread corruption.

even if you point me that he was appointed as DEPUTY already back in 2014 ( end of June?), where are the proofs that he was appointed for money-laundering investigation - I gave you a direct cite. Since our discussion, I've seen Shokin flatly named as the Ukrainian who forced the UK investigative shutdown by a reputable news source (no bookmark kept). John Solomon (the investigator relied upon by Hannity etc.) refers only to "Ukrainian" officials for various actions or alternatively blames it on British incompetence. Everything that I've read put Shokin right in the middle. This takes us back to his corruptive influence. And why was removed.