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.
You have to be right about the first bold and probably about the second. It appears clear that Poroshenko did not want to fire Shokin - which is why the process of getting him out became so protracted. More, I don't in the least disagree with your read of Ukrainian politics for you influence me more than you realize ... with you no doubt agreeing with this take:
There is little doubt that Poroshenko, a member of the oligarchic class that enriched itself off the privatization and plundering of state assets, is a criminal. Poroshenko—who was overwhelmingly voted out of office in April—is widely hated and despised by the vast majority of the Ukrainian working-class for his blatant corruption, xenophobic nationalism and far-reaching assaults on living standards during his time in power from 2014 to 2019.
The charges against Poroshenko give an inkling of the depth of criminality in a government that was brought to power by a coup that was fraudulently portrayed as a “democratic revolution” by the imperialist powers and the Western bourgeois media. Now, the same media that portrayed Poroshenko as a warrior of democracy and published article after article about the corruption of Yanukovych, have maintained an almost complete silence.
The U.S. government (and the wider Western community, including the IMF) could hardly order Poroshenko to fire himself (embarrassment aside). Like Shokin was Poroshenko's man, so was Joe Biden point man on the so-called democracy reformation.
Yes.
Quote:
What was going on in Ukraine - both in terms of the corruption and the Western decision to "reform" the GPO - went well beyond Joe Biden (and Burisma and Hunter Biden). It doesn't really matter who was "most" corrupt with the GPO back in 2015 and whose name went on the UK money laundering letter.
Here I am somewhat disagree.
This kind of letters wouldn't be sent to British investigation without the knowledge ( and approval) of Poroshenko personally. I don't believe so - too much money was involved in Burisma, and my guess is Poroshenko had his cut, as in other* lucrative deals.*
Quote:
Shokin from the US perspective (per the then-US ambassador) as then Prosecutor General had to go. Likewise there was the IMF demand for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau that appears to undercut the power of the GPO.
Yes, the Prosecutor General who was loyal ( and answering to Poroshenko only) was inconvenient for Western powers. He was inconvenient for IMF as well, since the IMF wanted to make sure that the money made were not distributed solely among the "Ukraine's rich," but that IMF/foreign corporations would get their cut too.
Quote:
Lots of folks flocked to Ukraine to make money in the corruption and chaos - including Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman, and Hunter Biden. Ukrainians, in turn, used them where possible - with for example, Lutensko feeding stories (now many denied) to Rudy Giuliani and on to John Solomon for his purposes.
Yes, more or less. ( Although what "The Hill" was reporting ( i.e. John Solomon) was for the most part true.)
Quote:
Where "truths" lie is complicated with few white knights in evidence.
To me the truth was lying with people of Donbass, people that were attacked and killed, and christened as "terrorists" at that, since they dared to refuse to be part of the coup d'etat and everything that was coming with it.
Quote:
As for my third bold of your text, Poroshenko may well have been "protecting" Zlochevsky (maybe for bribes, maybe for deeper more political reasons) with evidence of Poroshenko's corruption an embarrassment to the Western-led democracy movement.
and later released by him; it was widely discussed in Ukrainian media ( here in this video it's played during some popular show back in 2018.)
It's Onishenko talking to Poroshenko, saying that he met "Kolya" ( Zlochevsky) in Dubai, and that *Kolya* wants Poroshenko to know that he purchased some additional gas company ( I assume,) that he wants to solve problems "globally," ( instead of working with some "Igor," who only wants gas for his enterprises.) He is talking about some "joint projects" with Shell and Exxon Mobile, talks about his plans of creating some "Western company" (through which funds are going to be moved as I understand,) offers Poroshenko 50/50 profits "for help" and some other interesting details.
In this recording Poroshenko is saying that "Americans are all worked up regarding Kolya (Zlochevsky) lately," to which Onishenko is responding that "there shouldn't be any problems from their side, since Biden's son ( and ex-president of Poland Kwashnevsky) "are on his board of directors."
Poroshenko is responding that "Kolya is a good guy" and that he will think how he can help him.
( Under this video you can read more explanations from Onishenko how things were working under Poroshenko, and how closely intertwined he was with all the *business owners," Zlochevsky including, getting his "cuts.")
But again, this had little to do with Hunter Biden - from Joe Biden's perspective that is. (I completely agree with your assessment that Hunter Biden on the board was yet another inducement to leave Burisma alone - an unspoken one.)
Well his "perspective" was very careless then, to say the least.
Quote:
What I object to is the stupidity of the Trump version - how profoundly American-centric it is when the reality is much more interesting.
What I object to here, is the whole situation, where this anti-Russian project "Ukraine" was concocted by the previous ( Obama) administration and mired in the deepest corruption, yet it's Trump who had little to do with all that, now has to end up with the accusations thrown in his face, and to pay the price of impeachment.
And as I said, I was just a bystander, watching closely the developing events in Ukraine from 2014, for a totally different reason; namely - Donbass region and what was taking place there.
Hunter Biden accepted a position with Burisma for which he wasn't qualified, and admitted he only got the job because he is Joe Biden's son in an interview (stupid to outright admit it on national TV, but... he's Biden's son ), and VP Quid Pro Quo Joe threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to the Ukraine if the Ukraine didn't fire their prosecutor within 6 hours, which the Ukraine promptly did.
So what?
I know a bunch of people who accepted positions they weren't ever qualified for. Me included, a time or two.
Part of landing a job is learning the job demands; very few folks are ever fully qualified for a new job in a new company. Employers often look for adaptability over experience in new hires.
Sure, no reason to doubt Lutsenko received a do not prosecute list. He wasn't investigating corruption, he was actually investigating anti-corruption activists.
VP Joe Biden was acting a representative of the UsA with instructions from the POTUS. He was not going rogue. Even the EU supported the position.
IMO, his kid accepting a position on the board of a foreign company he knew nothing about was plain and simple money grubbing. Any thinking person knew the company was buying influence.
Joe Biden knew he was considering a run for POTUS. Allowing his son to accept that position was at the very least a really stupid move.
"Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden"
"By early 2016 the Ukrainian investigation had advanced enough that then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin authorized a court-ordered seizure of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred on Feb. 2, 2016, according to published reports in Ukraine."
VP Joe Biden was acting a representative of the UsA with instructions from the POTUS. He was not going rogue. Even the EU supported the position.
IMO, his kid accepting a position on the board of a foreign company he knew nothing about was plain and simple money grubbing. Any thinking person knew the company was buying influence.
Joe Biden knew he was considering a run for POTUS. Allowing his son to accept that position was at the very least a really stupid move.
Agreed to all of this. Although, I'm not sure Joe could stop Hunter from accepting the position. Maybe he asked him not to and Hunter did it anyway? He was a 40 year old man at the time, after all.
It was/is unarguably very bad optics. Bad optics aren't evidence of malfeasance, however.
Agreed to all of this. Although, I'm not sure Joe could stop Hunter from accepting the position. Maybe he asked him not to and Hunter did it anyway? He was a 40 year old man at the time, after all.
It was/is unarguably very bad optics. Bad optics aren't evidence of malfeasance, however.
The Biden family makes a big deal about how close they are. That's why I think there may have been a conversation.
But, wouldn't any prudent parent who held a position of influence have conversations with the kids about how some people may try to use them?
IMO, that conversation should have started when the Biden kids were 10 years old, and reviewed and updated at age appropriate times. Even at the risk of making the kids cynical. We had current event conversations every night at dinner with our kids. They continue to this day. The conversations include what we consider ethical solutions and behavior of those involved.
VP Joe Biden was acting a representative of the UsA with instructions from the POTUS. He was not going rogue. Even the EU supported the position.
IMO, his kid accepting a position on the board of a foreign company he knew nothing about was plain and simple money grubbing. Any thinking person knew the company was buying influence.
Joe Biden knew he was considering a run for POTUS. Allowing his son to accept that position was at the very least a really stupid move.
"Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden"
"By early 2016 the Ukrainian investigation had advanced enough that then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin authorized a court-ordered seizure of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred on Feb. 2, 2016, according to published reports in Ukraine."
Democrats insist there was no Burisma investigation when Biden demanded the prosecutor be fired.
They wouldn't lie about that, would they?
Zlochevsky didn't work for Burisma, he was the Ecology Minister of Ukraine. His investigation is surely linked to Burisma based on the accusations of money laundering. That is not the same thing as investigating Burisma. Agreed?
The then, and current, 1st Deputy Prosecutor General, has already reported that the still-open Burisma investigation was "shelved" and "dormant" starting in 2014 and continuing through today. How does Mr. Solomon address that, I wonder?
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.
), and VP Quid Pro Quo Joe threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to the Ukraine if the Ukraine didn't fire their prosecutor within 6 hours, which the Ukraine promptly did.
