[vienna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

OK vienna, here's the jist of the matter let e make it easy for you,

1. Shokin in a sworn statement says he was investigating Burisma of which Don Jr. was a board member of.

2. In that sworn statement Shokin says Trump Sr. put pressure on the Ukraine president to sack Shokin.

3. Shokin gets sacked and because of upcoming elections little Don Jr. disappears.

4. New Trump friendly prosecutor in the Ukraine says everyone move along now, nothing to see here!

5. Trump Sr. is video tapped bragging in front of a gathering at the Council of Foreign Affairs how he was the one that got Shokin fired.

6. Now, the admission of Trump Sr. seems to me a need to dismiss the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, V.M. Shokin, as a condition for allocating appropriate financial assistance to Ukraine.


Did I miss something?


In your treasure trove of study, law and facts, besides the underlying stench of hypocrisy, what would you say 6# qualifies as?

Before I start, I would like to address something posted by Mr. Quatro:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Are you sure of all those facts ... the names seem off a bit

Yes, it does seem there was a bit of a Freudian Slip in regards to the use of the name "Trump" and/or "Don Jr." in #1, #2, #3,#4, #5, and #6...

...and yes, I concur, Rockstar does seem to have difficulty with facts...


Well, I would say#6 qualifies as Joe Biden doing the job he was assigned to do, on behalf of US Foreign Policy, in conjunction with US Allies and international monetary entities, and that job was to pressure the Ukrainian government to get rid of a do-nothing, obstructionist, prosecutor who was refusing to act on legitimate reports and concerns of those Biden was asked to represent; he acted under the laws of the US, in a manner consistent with then US Foreign Policy and was not actively or overtly seeking personal gain; you'll probably bring up that tired old, thoroughly debunked whine of "Biden did it ti stop an investigation of his son, hunter and Burisma!"; yet, there is no so;ind evidence, of any kind that either or both Hunter Biden or Burisma were under active investigation; in fact, the Ukraine government, current prosecutors, Ukrainian anti-corruption watchdog groups, among others have flatly stated there were no active investigations of Biden/Burisma at all and the last known open investigation into Burisma occurred in 2006, eight (8) years before Biden became a board member; "here's the" gist "of the matter let" me "make it easy for you" ( I only put quotes around the non-error portions of your sentence; don't want to be accused of misquoting you :


1. There was NO ongoing investigation of Biden/Burisma at the time Shokin was pushed out by the US, its allies and international financial entities

2. Shokin was under fire both internally in the Ukraine and externally by the EU, various other concerned nations, the IMF, and other monetary entities for NOT actively pursing corruption within the Ukraine

3. It would be and is impossible for Joe Biden to have a motive of trying to stop an investigation into Hunter Biden explicitly because there was no on-going Ukrainian investigation at the time of Shokin's ouster, which was part of the reason Shokin was fired

4. Since there was NO investigation to stop and neither Biden would have financially (noting that Hunter was being paid a legitimate compensation for sitting on Burisma's Board of Directors) or politically benefited from Shokin's ouster, the argument of personal gain is moot, unless you can prove otherwise with verifiable facts

5. The argument of the Bidens seeking the ouster of Shokin to block any investigation(s) into Hunter's activities by ousting Shokin defies logic: in ousting a corrupt, ineffectual prosecutor like Shokin, logic says the Ukraine government, in order to comply with the demands of the US/allied nations/international monetary entities, would be required to get an aggressive, proactive, ethical, and honest prosecutor to take Shokin's place and that being the case, the probability of such an honest, dutiful prosecutor launching an investigation into possible corrupt activities of Burisma/Hunter is very substantially increased, not diminished, and illogical on the face of it

...and, yes, you do seem to be missing quite a lot...


Now let me dig into what you call my "treasure trove of study, law and facts"...


Let's start with the Shokin sworn affidavit you are constantly waving about as gospel truth. Aside from the fact Shokin has a well documented past of corruption, deceit, and criminality and any attorney would drool at the chance to take apart an affidavit from such a sort of 'witness' (perjury, sweet perjury), let's look into why Shokin gave that affidavit. There s currently a trial in Austria for a Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Dmitry Firtash. Firtash fled the Ukraine to avoid charges once the former pre-Russian was ousted and a new pro-Western government was installed. Firtash was/is very closely allied with Vladimir Putin and has been accused in the Ukriane of various corruption charges; he fled the Ukraine and settled in Austria, a big mistake on his part because he is also wanted here in the US on various charges including money laundering, among other felonies; the US has an extradition treaty with Austria and has requested Firtash be extradited to the US for prosecution and Firtash is fighting the request iin Austrian courts. The affidavit you wave about so much was given as a'witness statement by Shokin in support of Firtash's fight to avoid extradition, a seeming odd thing for someone the Trump minions and Trumpettes have bee trying to foist off as a maligned anti-corruption crusader to do and be involved in; to actively be in the defense of someone the US and his own native country of the Ukraine are seeking to prosecute for corruption and other felonies belies and dissolves any pretense or claim Shokin is anything but as corrupt as those he refused to prosecute. Here's a background article on the Firtash/Shokin connection, containg a goodly number of cites and is a good read:


Viktor Shokin Affidavit Mentions Joe Biden, Dmytro Firtash --

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/vikto...fidavit-biden/

Labeled a witness statement, the Viktor Shokin affidavit said he was making the statement at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash for use in legal proceedings in Austria. In it, he says he was the former General Prosecutor of the Republic of Ukraine who worked in that office from 1980 to 2016 at different times.

According to ABC 7, Firtash is “the subject of a drawn out extradition fight by federal prosecutors in Chicago.” Reuters has reported of Firtash, an oligarch: “His success was built on remarkable sweetheart deals brokered by associates of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, at immense cost to Russian taxpayers.” Firtash then helped a pro Russia/Putin president become elected in Ukraine (Viktor Yanukovich, who is no longer in power and fled to Russia after demonstrations.)

The prosecutor was fired in 2016 “after months of demands from the country’s pro-reform and anti-graft community for his failure to investigate the corruption of fugitive President Victor Yanukovych’s regime. Yanukovych was ousted in the EuroMaidan Revolution in 2014 and fled to Russia,” reported Kyiv Post.

Some allege that Shokin actually stopped investigating Burisma, countering his narrative that he wanted to pursue the probe. Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told Radio Free Europe that Shokin “dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case.” Furthermore, “Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand,” Radio Free Europe reports.

“Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case,” Kaleniuk said to Radio Free Europe. “Zlochevsky had been Ukraine’s ecology minister under former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian leader who had been forced into exile in Russia,” James Risen wrote for Intercept.

Risen added, “The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.” Read his full report here.

According to Kyiv Post, “The accusations against the Bidens are not supported by any available evidence.” It is true, though, that Hunter Biden was sitting on the Burisma board of directors at the time Joe Biden was pushing for Shokin’s ouster. Kyiv Post called Shokin “a highly unpopular prosecutor general.” Kyiv Post reported: “Firtash was a close ally to Yanukovych and is still a business partner of the ex-president’s chief of staff, Serhiy Lovochkin. In his early days, he allegedly worked with organized crime boss Semyon Mogilevich and profited from a murky scheme to resell Turkmen gas.”

The newspaper also reported, of Firtash, “the oligarch’s defense team has hired two attorneys connected to Trump, Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing.” ABC7 says that Firtash is also represented by lawyer Dan Webb, a Chicago attorney and former federal prosecutor. DiGenova and Toensing are conservative lawyers whose backgrounds you can read more about later in this article. According to Daily Beast, Fox News reported that DiGenova and Toensing were “working off the books” to help Rudy Giuliani dig up dirt against Biden. Chris Wallace broke the story on Fox.

Shokin seems to run with rather seedy company, for a supposedly 'honest' man...

So, if you really want to use the the affidavit of a proven corrupt and deceitful person used in the defense of another corrupt and deceitful person who is trying to avoid answering for his own crimes as a foundation for your arguments and claims, well, good luck with that...


Regarding the genesis of the whole faux story Trump, his minions, and Trumpettes have been feverishly trying to foist, here's an article written by the reporter who first broke the story and how he feels it has been hijacked by the Trumpers:


I Wrote About the Bidens and Ukraine Years Ago. Then the Right-Wing Spin Machine Turned the Story Upside Down --

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/...y-upside-down/


The above article's author, James Risen, makes note of, and prvides a cite link to, the following article which further details the misrepresentations and lies a very desperate Trump and his followers have engaged in:


A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True --

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/...reformer-says/


A couple of last bits of actual facts. First, the minioms and Trumpettes have been trying to make it seem that Hunter Biden was being paid an exorbitant wad of cash for sitting on Burisma's Board of Directors, insinuating the compensation was a sort of massive bribe. Biden was on the board about five years and, truth be told, no one has been able to accurately ascertain how much compensation Biden received from Burisma; the Trumpers wail out a figure of some $3,000,000, which works out to about $600,000/year and $50,000/month. However, that figure is not accurate; this artice, by a fact-checking site, details what is known of the Biden/Burisma compensation arrangements:


FACT CHECK: Was Hunter Biden Paid As Much As $50,000 A Month For His Work With Burisma? --

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/17...isma-payments/


It would seem no one really knows what Biden was paid. What is known is Biden was on the really low-end of the scale when it comes to corporate board member compensation:


How Much Board of Directors Members Get Paid and What They Do --

https://www.investopedia.com/article...boards-pay.asp

As a retired executive, you could make an encore career out of serving on one or more corporate boards. Board membership can be significantly less stressful and time consuming than earlier positions you might have held—while still offering a six-figure income. You might even earn more doing this part-time work, especially when calculated hourly.

At the high end, you could earn seven figures: Former AOL CEO Jonathan Miller earned more than $1 million in 2015 for sitting on eight corporate boards, and former Merck & Co. CEO P. Roy Vagelos earned more than $20 million, mainly in stock options, as chairman of a single board in 2014, the Boston Globe reports.



...


Responsibilities and Compensation

Only outside directors get compensation specifically for serving on the board. Inside directors, such as C-suite level executives, don’t receive additional compensation. By the Boston Globe’s calculations, the median pay in 2014 for a board seat at a micro-cap company (one with less than $500 million in revenues) was $105,583; pay increases with company size, up to $258,000 for board members of the 200 largest U.S. corporations (those with more than $10 billion in revenues).

So, Biden wasn't getting an outlandish amount of compensation and I've gotta find a way to get one of those board member gigs...


Lastly, it seems the new Ukrainian government, and its new anti-corruption prosecutors, have no plans to make an investigation into Hunter Biden and his tenure with Burisma since the allegations of corruption against Burisma are for activities that occurred years bfore Biden joined Burisma; there is also the fact that the Ukraine is a sovereign nation and their prosecutors act on information and evidence they themselves uncover and on internal complaints; they do not act on speculative commentsallegations from foreign sources unless there is accompanying compelling evidence:


Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined --

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1WC1LV

A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said.

Separately, a senior official at the General Prosecutor’s office said that neither of the Bidens had been called for questioning in relation to this investigation.

Ukraine would open an investigation into the period when Hunter Biden was involved with Burisma if there were compelling new testimony in Ukraine, Nazar Kholodnytsky, the head of anti-corruption investigations at Ukraine’s Prosecutor’s Office, said on Novoye Vremya radio.

But it could not do so on its own initiative, based solely on comments currently being made in the United States, he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump asked Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in July to probe whether Joe Biden tried to block an investigation into his son’s relationship with the company, which was drilling for gas in Ukraine.

I don't really have a "treasure trove of study, law and facts", but I do like to know at least something about what I comment on and what is the truth behind an issue, separating the gist from the garbage. Its like the old X-Files saying: "The Truth Is Out There"; you just have to look for it...


Laws and facts are very, very important: they form part of the basis of a civilized and well-governed society. The greatest damage is done when the law and facts, also known as truth, are distorted, violated, ignored, and corrupted by those who disregard hard facts and have sworn, under oath, to "preserve, protect and defend" the laws and the Constitution...



I know this post is rather long and I do apologize to the other members if they find this tedious, but I'm just trying to give as much evidence as possible to back up my arguments and statement. I wish I could do one of those 'drive-by' posts where a comment is made, presented as being truth , without anything to act as back-up or verification, or regurgitate some slogan or trite bit heard on some media source, but I guess I just don't have that shallowness in me; again, I apologize...





@mapuc:

Your questions a very welcomed and have been very interesting. I have enjoyed seeing our nation and its goings-on through your eyes. If I may suggest: scientists have a practice of asking probing questions, and when they get an answer, they don't just accept the first answer as being THE ANSWER, instead they question the answer they have found and rigorously research and further test its basis in fact and veracity. I know there is a bit of a language difficulty (which you seem to be handling rather well) and a bit of a cultural difference when it comes to understanding the myriad way we Americans seem to complicate our lives, but I ask that you continue to question the answers you get from us and seek out the facts and the truth; not all answers are a final answer, my answers included...

Keep asking questions...






<O>