Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

[_Markk]

Honor...

Second question

"Lawyer v board member"

The answer is clearly both. He is a lawyer "by trade." He had no experience in the Natural Gas industry.

Here is a article from Reuters...

Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board, which ended in April of this year.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunt ... SKBN1WX1P7


Politico Reported...

The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals,” Alan Apter, Burisma Holdings’ chairman of the board of directors, said in a statement, which was reported by The Moscow Times on Tuesday.

Biden, joining the board, will be in charge of the legal unit, the company said. He will also provide support for Burisma Holdings “among international organizations.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/ ... ard-106631


Note:

The article is dated May 13, 2014...the day Hunter was announced to joining the company. A month earlier, on April 16, Archer made a trip to the White House, and met with Joe Biden...which the day before , April 15, Burisma deposited 112K into Rosmont C/O Archer.

On April 22 it was announced that Archer was joining the Burisma Board, and guess what?...On April 21, after the 112k was given to Rosemont, Joe Biden was in Kiev bringing the terms for a United States Agency for International Development (USAID) program to assist the Ukrainian natural gas industry.

More later

[_honorentheos]

Do you know what it means to be hired as a lawyer? Nevermind. You answered that in the negative above. Oh, almost forgot. LOL

[_honorentheos]

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/time ... rainegate/

Might as well post it here, too. For posterity.

[_Markk]

I know what this means ...

"Biden, joining the board, will be in charge of the legal unit..."

And what this means...

"paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues,..."

And what this means...

Listen/watch at around 6:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBQycscF08A


I read the book you recommended...Moneyland...

This meticulously researched and fantastically disturbing book is effectively the global version of that tour. Bullough traces the ways in which, over the last three decades, a criminal elite of politicians and “businessmen” have been able to move their thieved fortunes around the world, through offshoring and shell companies, and have seen those fortunes settle in the places that have the highest-paid lawyers and accountants. Some economists’ estimates put the amount of money secreted in this way at $20tn (£15tn). Bullough calls the new world in which the kleptocratic class exists and does not exist Moneyland – a shifting Brobdingnag of “Maltese passports, English libel, American privacy, Panamanian shell companies, Jersey trusts, Liechtenstein foundations”, all designed to keep knowledge of outrageous fortune out of the sight of tax officials and tax-paying voters.

Which you also quoted here...

viewtopic.php?p=1215677#p1215677

Hunter former boss, who still owns Burisma...is said to be in Monaco...where many off shore accounts are.

Now you are arguing and splitting hairs, that Hunter was not really a lawyer for Mykola Zlochevsky...but just sat on the board of director as the head of legal affairs, for this corrupt oligarch, with deep Russian ties.


From Moneyland...

In 2010, after Yanukovich won election as president, Zlochevsky became natural resources minister. That position gave him oversight of all energy companies operating in Ukraine, including the country’s largest independent gas company, Burisma. The potential for a conflict of interests should have been clear, because Zlochevsky himself controlled Burisma. But there was no public outcry about this, because almost no one in Ukraine knew about it. Zlochevsky owned his businesses via Cyprus, a favored haven for assets unobtrusively controlled by high-ranking officials in the Yanukovich administration.

Bullough, Oliver. Moneyland (p. 182). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This was Hunters Boss...there is no way around this. Are you going to try to defend that somehow Zlochevsky wasn't aware and did not approve the hiring of the VP of the USA's son?

So in your mind if he was not a lawyer, while being in charge of legal affairs for Burisma...what was he doing there that is somehow okay?

[_canpakes]

To be fair, Rosemont Seneca probably was involved in moving corrupt money around. The issue is folks like Markk keep wanting to see this hung around Joe Biden's neck. Hunter, John Kerry's stepson, and Devin Archer probably were using their claims to be connected in Washington to attract investors and contracts, and they had zero scrupples when it came to vetting if those other players were dirty or not. There is certainly corruption to be found when one goes digging into Relief Society.

Just not corruption involving Joe Biden abusing his office to profit Relief Society.

At the least, Biden's acceptance of the position with Burisma has terrible optics and smacks of opportunism. Although I'm not a fan of opportunism, it does seem to be a prime component of capitalism and the American Way, so I find it hard to criticize unless there is a known and clear corrupt component. Ardent fans of Trump would paint themselves into a corner and expose themselves as laughably hypocritical if opportunism alone was their complaint about Hunter Biden.

Still, Markk needs to show the data behind the accusations. He started this thread because, after 30 pages in the 'Impeachment' thread, he couldn't gain enough traction in his quest to change the subject from Trump to Biden, due - for the most part - in being bogged down with a simple question that pierced the heart of his accusation about Joe Biden's alleged 'corruption that demands to be investigated' ... the question of why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate.

Within this new thread, his premise still faces this major flaw, and he'll again need to dodge that question while he simultaneously begs his audience to believe that Biden needs to be investigated.

[_canpakes]

I wonder if Canpakes asks the same questions that’ll go unanswered for, I dunno, thirty pages, if we’ll bet another thread on some other topic that’ll detract from this unanswered question:

Why didn’t Trump have the DoJ or State department conduct an investigation into the Bidens’ activities?

- Doc

You can count on it.

[_canpakes]

I know what this means ...

"Biden, joining the board, will be in charge of the legal unit..."

And what this means...

"paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues,..."

...

So in your mind if he was not a lawyer, while being in charge of legal affairs for Burisma...what was he doing there that is somehow okay?

Markk, first you complained that Hunter Biden was paid too much for being a board member, and that he had no experience. Now you're implying that he was in charge of all legal issues at Burisma.

Have you decided to move away from your failed attempt to justify any salary based on your initial disingenuous description of Biden's position? And are you now OK with his level of pay given your characterization of Biden being head of the legal team (whatever that means to you) at Burisma?

Hey, by the way - why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate all of this? You keep telling us that we need to do that; I'm so curious as to why Trump didn't think to do so.

[Guest]

Just some basics from Wiki, because it angers conservatives: : D

In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts". Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

In a sworn affidavit dated 4 September 2019, for a European court, Shokin stated that "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation." Shokin's affidavit notes that it was prepared "at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash," which since July 2019 included Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, close associates of President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas. John Herbst, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, said that Shokin's support of Firtash, who had been arrested for bribery in 2014, undercuts Shokin's claims to be motivated by transparency.

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings. However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.

[_canpakes]

More fun stuff, from Financial Times:

European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said. 
...

EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time told the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push for Mr Shokin’s removal was part of an international effort to bolster Ukraine’s institutions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country. 

“All of us were really pushing [former Ukrainian president Petro] Poroshenko that he needs to do something, because the prosecutor was not following any of the corruption issues. He was really bad news,” said an EU diplomat involved in the discussions. “It was Biden who finally came in [and triggered it]. Biden was the most vocal, as the US usually is. But we were all literally complaining about the prosecutor.” 

Mr Shokin had been appointed prosecutor-general of Ukraine in February 2015, but the discussions in Washington and EU capitals about pushing for his removal started as early as April after he failed to follow through on a burst of expected early anti-corruption moves, one former US Treasury official said. Mr Biden entered the fray in December 2015, placing Mr Shokin’s removal at the top of his agenda on a visit to Kiev. “I know how the idea to have Shokin fired came up, and it wasn't Biden. His direct involvement came late in the game,” the former US Treasury official said.

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61 ... 5a370481bc

[_canpakes]

From an article on Markk's hero, Viktor Shokin:

...

The wild conspiracy theory on which Trump based his assertion – that Joe Biden had Shokin removed to stop him investigating wrongdoing in his son’s gas company – has already been widely debunked.

Put simply, the chronology doesn’t work – the investigation into Burisma, where Hunter worked, was dormant by the time Shokin was pushed out. It would also represent a major historical anomaly. During Shokin’s 13 months in office, not one major figure was convicted. No oligarch. No politician. No ranking bureaucrat. It would appear unlikely he was in the middle of breaking the habit with the Bidens.

But Shokin himself has put his weight behind the complimentary Trumpian narrative.

In an affidavit, submitted in September in an unconnected extradition case involving oligarch Dmytro Firtash, the former prosecutor said he had been dismissed because he refused to heed the advice of then-President Petro Poroshenko to drop an investigation.

“I was forced out because … I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden was a member of the board,” the statement reads.

...

Following the Orange Revolution in 2004, Poroshenko took control of Ukraine’s national security council. Shokin got a second stint as deputy prosecutor.

In 2014, Poroshenko emerged from the Euromaidan revolution as president. And Shokin, at that point a pensioner, returned to the limelight as deputy prosecutor for the third time, becoming the main man a year later.

“They were together till the end,” says former deputy prosecutor Sakvarelidze. “You can be sure there were financial ties. In Ukraine, it is normal for a major oligarch to find his own prosecutor, his own judges and so on. Shokin was Poroshenko’s special deputy prosecutor. There was no surprise when Poroshenko brought him out of retirement.”

In a rare interview in 2015, Shokin insisted he had not asked Poroshenko for the top job. His former superior Piskun suggests that was not entirely true. “Shokin wanted the job,” the one-time chief prosecutor said, “though he wasn’t aggressive in lobbying for it.”

Lack of aggression was a description many would use for Shokin’s approach to the job in his third spell. Two of the people interviewed for this article described the former chief prosecutor as “lazy”, and uninterested in real investigations. Others noted a penchant for bonding with oligarchs over vodka in the bathhouse.

“He wasn’t exactly highly professional,” said one source, a current Kiev-based prosecutor who asked to remain anonymous. “Shokin would always sign documents without really looking at them. On the other hand, he’d let us get on with our jobs, and was quite democratic, which we all appreciated.”

Another source said Shokin’s tenure as Ukraine’s general prosecutor was “no more, but no less corrupt” than what went before it.

That, of course, was not a ringing endorsement. Since the fall of the USSR, the prosecutor general’s office has come to be considered one of the least trusted public institutions in Ukraine. In Soviet times, abuse of justice was ideological in nature, but the job was largely respected. Around the mid-1990s, corruption began to take over as the main driver. Over time, the institution degenerated into something resembling a legalised racket, sources say.

“When I joined we were doing 80 per cent honest endeavour, and 20 per cent corrupt,” says one prosecutor, who began his career in the late 1990s.

“Now things have switched, and it’s only 20 or 30 per cent honest. The main thing that matters is making the boss happy, and ultimately that means making the president happy. Everything else is for sale.”

The approach of Shokin’s office to the Burisma investigations fell into a well-practiced pattern of corruption, the anonymous prosecutor says. By the time of Biden’s intervention, there were no active investigations to speak of.

“If the idea was to get a result on the Burisma case, Shokin would have put his top people on it,” he says. “That didn’t happen. The aims were different.”

Investigations into Burisma, which only ever covered the period from before Hunter Biden’s involvement in the company, were finally settled in 2016. An audio recording purporting to be of Petro Poroshenko in conversation with another gas tycoon acting as a mediator, offered some clues as to the sequencing. In it, the two men talk about a “global solution” to Burisma’s problems: redirecting cashflows to Poroshenko’s companies.

Poroshenko’s spokespeople have described the recordings as fake, but not everyone is convinced.

“Neither Shokin nor Poroshenko wanted to investigate [Burisma owner Mykola​] Zlochevsky,” says Sakvarelidze. “They simply began a criminal case, arrested a few assets, and began negotiating with the corruptioneer for a bribe.”

Former chief prosecutor Sviatoslav says he gave Shokin his big break on the recommendation of Poroshenko.
For activists, Shokin’s prosecutorship is remembered for its failure to secure convictions for crimes of the previous regime. These include the killing of more than 100 protesters during the Euromaidan revolution.

“Shokin impeded those fighting for justice,” said Vitaly Tytych, a lawyer representing the families of the victims. “It is wrong to call what he did investigations. Because if there is one thing Shokin never did it is investigate.”

Serhiy Horbatyuk, who headed the special investigation department which was eventually given responsibility for investigating the Euromaidan crimes, clashed with the leadership of the general prosecutor’s office.

“On Euromaidan, Shokin did not actively impede our investigations,” he says. “But he didn’t help them either. It seemed deliberate.”

By the time Joe Biden arrived in Kiev in December 2015 to issue his infamous ultimatum, Shokin had lost the support of all but 3.5 per cent of Ukrainians.

Many MPs were also clamouring for his dismissal.

First among them was Yehor Soboliev, then a reformist MP of the Samopomich faction and chair of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee. In July 2015, Soboliev pressed for a vote on Shokin’s ousting. The arithmetic was always against him, as the general prosecutor was a figure of the ruling coalition. But he came surprisingly close, collecting 127 signatures from a required 150. Several members of the ruling parties broke ranks to support his move.

“We were under no illusions,” Soboliev tells The Independent. “We saw how Shokin had made an art of dumping cases while pretending to investigate. How he was a symbol of ineffectiveness and stalling. How he was the embodiment of the post-Soviet prosecutor.”

In summing up, David Sakvarelidze used a similar formula.

“Shokin was not a bad man per se,” he says. “He was simply a man of another era; a typical, post-Soviet Ukrainian prosecutor. But after Maidan, that was a certifiable condition.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 47001.html