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.
No, Burisma was under investigation in February 2014, and Biden Junior joined it couple of months later. ( The Guardian states this, because the investigation was opened in London in February 2014.)
Overall there were quite a few cases opened against Burisma - I saw at least seven mentioned (opened/closed/active/dormant) on Ukrainian site.
Zlochevsky ( Burisma's co-owner) is notorious figure over there.
So as I've said - it was NOT a good idea for Biden Junior to join such company.
As for the rest...
No, I haven't read Mueller's report, because I was not following "Russiagate," or any fights between Trumps/Democrats camps closely, because, to be honest, I see both sides of a story and it's hard for me to decide anything.
But I WAS watching closely Ukrainian events starting back in 2014 for my own ( unrelated to internal US politics) reasons, and there was a big discrepancy between the Western media narrative and what people on location were showing/telling.
Trump was nowhere around of course back then, so it's plain wrong in my opinion to make him pay for all this mess.
Thank you erasure, I knew the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevskiy didn't end in 2012 like the poster claimed. I'm looking at the timeline here, Hunter joined in April 2014 to be in charge of the "legal" unit, he had just been discharged from the Navy for cocaine use in February 2014, just two months before he joined the board. The UK was investigating Burisma owner Zlochevskiy in April 2014, the month Hunter joined. In August 2014, Ukraine opens an investigation in Burisma/Zlochevskiy. It just so happens that Joe Biden made a trip to Ukraine the same month and year that Hunter joined the board.
Thank you erasure, I knew the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevskiy didn't end in 2012 like the poster claimed. I'm looking at the timeline here, Hunter joined in April 2014 to be in charge of the "legal" unit, he had just been discharged from the Navy for cocaine use in February 2014, just two months before he joined the board. The UK was investigating Burisma owner Zlochevskiy in April 2014, the month Hunter joined. In August 2014, Ukraine opens an investigation in Burisma/Zlochevskiy. It just so happens that Joe Biden made a trip to Ukraine the same month and year that Hunter joined the board.
You misunderstand. There were UK-initiated and Burisma-intiated investigations (per multiple sources, with minimal if any actual investigative activity occurring on the Ukrainian-end) technically 'active' in 2014 and 2015 - but the period of investigation or what was being investigated were actions that occurred during 2010-2012. Back in 2010-2012 Zlochevksy was a Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. In other words, these investigations were no threat to Hunter Biden - making nonsense of the Rudy Giuliani story.
That's the problem with the kind of so-called reporting that John Solomon does - he will give you some dates, but then not fill in the key details in order to spin. It is for that reason that The Hill forced him to first call his writing "opinion pieces" and then add yet another disclaimer to his work before under pressure from other reporters finally gave him the boot. He landed on Hannity. Worse, Rudy Giuliani knew the Burisma investigations were no threat to Hunter Biden. There is a long BBC interview on video where Lutensenko the then-Prosecutor General said he explained this to Giuliani. (Now here, I suspect Lutsenko might not be totally forthcoming because he later details how he "played" Giuliani but that's another twist.)
Back to the details (there were multiple Burisma investigations, even though Burisma is 'small potatoes' in the overall scheme of things with U.S. efforts focused on more than Shokin and Burisma):
How did the UK money laundering investigation get started (2014)?
Quote:
In 11 March 2014, a London branch of the French bank BNP Paribas received a request from a Ukrainian lawyer. He asked the bank to close accounts belonging to his client and transfer their balances to Cyprus.
The accounts contained a mere $23m, and the transaction should have been routine. But although the amount was unremarkable by the standards of the City, the times were not. Ukraine had just overthrown its president, Viktor Yanukovich, and the world was on the lookout for money that Yanukovich and his associates had stashed abroad. ... The country’s new government accused its predecessors of stealing $100bn, and the west – perhaps embarrassed that so much of this money had ended up in its banks – promised to do what it could to help return it to Ukraine. ... [There was an ongoing summit.] ... If the frozen $23m was indeed linked to corruption in Ukraine, it would still be only a fraction of what Yanukovich and his associates had been accused of embezzling. But the case was intended to send a message"
The UK investigation was torpedoed by the Ukrainian General Prosecutor Office not cooperating, after which Ukraine opened its own investigation into Zlochevsky. The General Prosecutor prior to Shokin charged Zlockevsky with illegally issuing gas licenses (or special permissions) to a number of enterprises, of which "he was a beneficiary" - including Burisma while he was Minister (or 2010-2012).
Opening the investigation potentially took some of the pressure off Ukrainian actions vis a vis the Brits. But then an investigation also allowed for the possibility of a bribe to keep it dormant, or not actually bring charges. That's a well-described practice in Ukraine - along with instituting investigations to harass your political opponents - a practice that Trump tried to take advantage of.
And it's what appeared to happened with the Ukrainian Burisma investigation. The same General Prosecutor that opened the Burisma investigation (again not Shokin) is accused of taking bribes ($7 million) to then not investigate. President Porochenko who is alleged to have multiple corrupt ties to Zlochevsky also (if Shokin is to be believed) pressured Shokin to actually close the investigation.
The Americans did the opposite, with Pyatt highlighting the Burisma situation (even though Hunter Biden was on the board) and pressuring Porochenko to clean up the General Prosecutor Office (including sacking its then-head Shokin who was implicated in various malpractices although he may not have been personally corrupt), continue to set up independent anti-corruption agencies etc.
This is not a simple story then can be explained in a tweet - with yet added layers of complexity with Lutsenko, Parnas etc. Just as a side "fact" - do you know who was doing all of John Solomon's "translating" and reviewing his draft stories - none other than Lev Parnas who at the same time was funneling Russian money into Trump PACs, attempting to raid Naftogaz, paying Rudy Giuliani $500,000 (using so-called donated American money), himself being bank-rolled (or so he bragged) by another Russian with ties to the Russian mafia - Firtash.
It's a mess - and into this Trump waltzed, with his calls for the Biden investigations, sidestepping is own DOJ and the FBI already in place in Kiev.
This is not a simple story then can be explained in a tweet - with yet added layers of complexity with Lutsenko, Parnas etc.
This is the biggest problem from a facts VS feelings standpoint.
How do you convince someone with a 5 sec attention span and strong feelings that what they feel is truthy to objectively and honestly evaluate actual facts? Then throw a s**t load of intentional bad faith actors in the mix to muddy the waters as well just for good measure.
I have not yet come up with an effective way to do so, people will continue to believe what they feel is truthy and if facts contradict those feelings they will simply reject the facts.
This is the biggest problem from a facts VS feelings standpoint.
How do you convince someone with a 5 sec attention span and strong feelings that what they feel is truthy to objectively and honestly evaluate actual facts? Then throw a s**t load of intentional bad faith actors in the mix to muddy the waters as well just for good measure.
I have not yet come up with an effective way to do so, people will continue to believe what they feel is truthy and if facts contradict those feelings they will simply reject the facts.
That's what gets to me about the Trump lying - he KNOWS folks will do that. No one ever accused Trump of not being able to read an audience or spin a mirage (be it a fabulous real estate property or Trump University or what have you). He is a skilled marketer - and sometimes the simpler the better, for otherwise folks eyes glaze over. Now don't get me wrong - multiple other politicians lie and spin, but most try not to get caught. Trump appears to simply not care. That's a problem IMHO.
The other thing this that's so intriguing about this is that Trump really did not need those Biden investigations - he has lots of potential and valid political points to make against Hunter Biden with Joe Biden as hypocrite. For sure, Hunter Biden did not belong on that Burisma board.
Here, Rudy Giuliani probably is telling the truth - the Ukrainians came to him, with motivations that Rudy either did not grasp or care to grasp because he saw the potential for personal profit-making. The tale of how Ukrainian corruption reached out to bite Donald J. Trump in the ass - due to his own personal weakness and personal corruption - fascinates me.
Personally, I'm not paying that much attention to the impeachment process - no doubt that Trump 'deserves' but the American political scene is such a mess that its painful to see.
You misunderstand. There were UK-initiated and Burisma-intiated investigations (per multiple sources, with minimal if any actual investigative activity occurring on the Ukrainian-end) technically 'active' in 2014 and 2015 - but the period of investigation or what was being investigated were actions that occurred during 2010-2012. Back in 2010-2012 Zlochevksy was a Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. In other words, these investigations were no threat to Hunter Biden - making nonsense of the Rudy Giuliani story.
That's the problem with the kind of so-called reporting that John Solomon does - he will give you some dates, but then not fill in the key details in order to spin.
NO, CoNM understood everything correctly, as far as I am concerned.
You need to realize that The Guardian as well "gives some dates," and then spin the story around only certain events, giving a false impression that that's all there is to the story.
But it's not. Although it's true that what PGO was investigating back in spring of 2014, pertained to the events that took place back in 2010-2012, it was only ONE of the criminal cases opened against Burisma between 2014 -2017. ( I see total of 6 cases against Burisma on Ukrainian site.)
MOST of these cases were related to criminal activities of Burisma back in 2010-2012, ( and even in 2003,) but for example criminal charges of tax evasion, ( case opened in 2016) were contemporary.
(Also, the suspicious 23 million on Burisma account that London discovered - we don't even know the exact date when money arrived there, do we? They could have arrived on foreign account in 2014 - same year when Hunter Biden was hired, not back in 2010-2012.)
Lutsenko couldn't explain all these details during the BBC interview, because his English is limited, however when he said that there was no investigation into Huter Biden activities, he was correct.
Because even though Hunter Biden joined a very corrupt entity ( i.e Burisma,) it was not about HIS personal actions per se, but criminal activities of the company in general ( where H. Biden was making his profits.)
And that's why Lutsenko repeated that if this violates AMERICAN laws, then Americans can go ahead and deal with it themselves. But not Ukrainians ( not according to THEIR laws.)
NO, CoNM understood everything correctly, as far as I am concerned.
You need to realize that The Guardian as well "gives some dates," and then spin the story around only certain events, giving a false impression that that's all there is to the story.
But it's not. Although it's true that what PGO was investigating back in spring of 2014, pertained to the events that took place back in 2010-2012, it was only ONE of the criminal cases opened against Burisma between 2014 -2017. ( I see total of 6 cases against Burisma on Ukrainian site.)
MOST of these cases were related to criminal activities of Burisma back in 2010-2012, ( and even in 2003,) but for example criminal charges of tax evasion, ( case opened in 2016) were contemporary.
I'm well aware of the multiple Burisma investigations. The two that CoNM referred to as relevant for 2014 were not (wrong period of investigation, covering Zlochevsky actions during 2010-12). The tax evasion investigation is not relevant to Rudy Giuliani's charge about Biden and Shokin - Shokin had already been fired, with the slap on the wrist that Lutsenko gave Burisma not in any way involving Hunter Biden. It was Lutsenko (I believe ... could check ... but it's not relevant) who instituted that investigation. That's why we don't hear of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
(Also, the suspicious 23 million on Burisma account that London discovered - we don't even know the exact date when money arrived there, do we? They could have arrived on foreign account in 2014 - same year when Hunter Biden was hired, not back in 2010-2012.) Lutsenko couldn't explain all these details during the BBC interview, because his English is limited, however when he said that there was no investigation into Huter Biden activities, he was correct.
These (the money laundering investigations) Lutsenko directly addressed as not involving Hunter Biden. You're really reaching here. Lutsenko did not go through each action involving Burisma but he hit the important ones (all and more than you've mentioned here), now saying he told Rudy Giuliani there was no path towards a Ukrainian investigation. (Lutsenko elsewhere has also made clear there is no evidence of Biden wrongdoing.)
Giuliani, of course, now maintains that Lutsenko who once was one of his star 'witnesses' is lying. From what I can see, both guys are crooks who interests temporarily overlapped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Because even though Hunter Biden joined a very corrupt entity ( i.e Burisma,) it was not about HIS personal actions per se, but criminal activities of the company in general ( where H. Biden was making his profits.)
And that's why Lutsenko repeated that if this violates AMERICAN laws, then Americans can go ahead and deal with it themselves. But not Ukrainians ( not according to THEIR laws.)
Like I've said, we tend to agree on the facts. Your bold is correct but that's not what Giuliani and Trump have charged - with attempts at times to drag in Joe Biden as personally profiting. Lutsenko even after Zelensky became President wanted an American investigation - an investigation where the prosecutorial power was returned to his office. We both know why.
I'm well aware of the multiple Burisma investigations. The two that CoNM referred to as relevant for 2014 were not (wrong period of investigation, covering Zlochevsky actions during 2010-12). The tax evasion investigation is not relevant to Rudy Giuliani's charge about Biden and Shokin - Shokin had already been fired, with the slap on the wrist that Lutsenko gave Burisma not in any way involving Hunter Biden. It was Lutsenko (I believe ... could check ... but it's not relevant) who instituted that investigation. That's why we don't hear of it.
These (the money laundering investigations) Lutsenko directly addressed as not involving Hunter Biden. You're really reaching here. Lutsenko did not go through each action involving Burisma but he hit the important ones (all and more than you've mentioned here), now saying he told Rudy Giuliani there was no path towards a Ukrainian investigation. (Lutsenko elsewhere has also made clear there is no evidence of Biden wrongdoing.)
Giuliani, of course, now maintains that Lutsenko who once was one of his star 'witnesses' is lying. From what I can see, both guys are crooks who interests temporarily overlapped.
Like I've said, we tend to agree on the facts. Your bold is correct but that's not what Giuliani and Trump have charged - with attempts at times to drag in Joe Biden as personally profiting. Lutsenko even after Zelensky became President wanted an American investigation - an investigation where the prosecutorial power was returned to his office. We both know why.
You know, I personally never looked into all the details Giuliani was digging into/presenting, because he doesn't come across as the best contender for the role of investigator under the circumstances ( Parnas and Fruman as his *assistance* only confirm my opinion.)
So initially I made my conclusions based on general overview of the situation as I stated before; Burisma is deeply corrupt company, with its corrupt owner/co-founder and his ties directly to Poroshenko.
Biden's son had no business joining this company and profiting from it, while his father was "fighting corruption" in Ukraine.
This is just common sense and the fact that "Burisma corruption" has never been "officially proven," or that Burisma's thieving has been paid off with the help of expensive lawyers doesn't change anything.
However, with all that being said, nothing indicates that Joe Biden personally was involved in this money-making corruption. And even if Joe Biden did indeed fired Shokin because of his ongoing investigation into Burisma, this is not easy to prove - because - here come the hair splitting details about "which case out of six total has been closed, which one has been dormant, which ones of them had "nothing to do with Hunter Biden"" and the rest. The circle has closed.
Yawn, nothing more to see here.
And when I was about to close that page, I came across something like THIS;
So I listened to the whole speech of this mentioned above M.P. Andrey Derkach, who basically talks ( and displays proofs) of close relations between Ukrainian NABU ( Anti-Corruption Bureau) and American Embassy, and who states that $900,000 has been paid to "Rosemost Seneca" through Burisma for some "consultative services," thus implicating not only Hunter Biden, but Joe Biden as well.
As in; "Derkach said the documents offered evidence of fees that Burisma paid Biden through an intermediary. The documents could not be immediately translated or verified by DailyMail.com. 'This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company,"( affiliated with Rosemont Seneca.")
The only refuting of this I saw so far, was "Oh, but there is no proof that Joe Biden ever received it."
Plus "Derkach is pro-Russian, he can't be trusted."
What Derkach is saying about Shokin ( and his plans to question Hunter Biden regarding $3 million that he received) yet again overrides anything I've heard before.
And overall Derkach states "I see no sense in creation of any "joint investigative committee of Ukrainian parliament and US Department of Justice. We need to gather the whole package of documents ( everything concerning Ukrainian involvement in US election/international corruption/Burisma case) and send them to US Department of Justice ( instead of bargaining these papers separately, piece by piece.)
Let Americans look into this package and decide for themselves what was legal from their point of view and what was not."
I can't find anything on this press-conference of Derkach in mainstream media ( as much as I'd like to hear the refuting of it.)
If you can find anything on it, please share)))
Ukraine was a Bank for political money laundering. It was not the only one we will soon find out.
China, Iran & Russia were also laundering money back to Politicians. Democrats & Republicans
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.
