Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

[Guest]

Shokin opened investigations to elicit bribes. Opening investigations is not a sign he was combating corruption. If you did more than chase partisan sources seeking to implicate Joe Biden you'd already know that.

HuH? He was behind the seizing of property and moving through the Ukrainian Judicial system...are you even reading what I write, and following the links?...Even if you refuse to look at the links. He was suing the prosecutor that signed off on the release of the 23 million. Zlochevsky had fled the country and did not comeback until Lutsenko, with the help of Hunter and the team he helped Burisma retain got him off.

These are facts, and can be confirmed with little effort.

Shokin had over 1300 anti corruption procedures alone during his short year within his administration. His administration has over 46,000 criminal investigation in his tenure...again a link you apparently ducked.

After his first his record was assessed, and his production against corruption was thre times more productive that the two previous GP's...again a link you did not review.

CFR and back up your assertion.

Zero convictions of actual high level officials charged with corruption, dumbass. He used investigations to leverage people not to pursue actual convictions.

Dumbass.

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

[_Markk]

His being wrong about that doesn't implicate him as you seem to think it does. Again, you are pointing to shadows and claiming they should carry the same weight as matters of substance.

No, not alone...but what it shows is that he was wrong, and could be equally wrong about Zlochevsky, at the least, was protecting Hunter, or even worse, part of the corruption.

You have to also note, and this is Important...Bidens quid pro quo was in 2012, the admission of it was in 2018...when he stated the guy was okay? You have to accept the fact, that after 6 years Joe was still saying Yuriy Lutsenko was a good choice...even when after only ten months in office, early 2013, Yuriy Lutsenko declared Zlochevsky innocent. This just adds to the muck, and more reason to warrant an investigation.

You only have a few choices there...one, he has no clue of what happened, or he was protecting his son...you don't have much in between.

Which all leads to whether there is evidence enough for an investigation....which is obvious there was and is.

You think he is innocent, I think he is dirty...you have offered nothing so far beyond a few talking points, while I have offered factual evidences that support my position.

Again CFR with any hard evidence other than hearsay that can't be disputed by 180 testimony.


This is your Premise...

Honor wrote...
My premise is when looked at holistically you can figure out who was legitimately working to combat corruption and who wasn't.

I have just started with what Shokin did...what is your evidence beyond the talking points? CFR

[_Markk]

Zero convictions of actual high level officials charged with corruption, d__a__. He used investigations to leverage people not to pursue actual convictions.

d__a__.

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

LOL I see you edited and added ad homs...

This is a talking point piece, now take it to the next step beyond defense attorneys, and un-named sources.

Back it up.

It is fact that he seized Zlochevsky property...it is fact he had many investigations stopped by Bidens approved replacement...

Back up the article Honor.

[_canpakes]

This is a talking point piece, now take it to the next step beyond defense attorneys, and un-named sources.

Back it up.

It is fact that he seized Zlochevsky property...it is fact he had many investigations stopped by Bidens approved replacement...

Back up the article Honor.

More information - with names - for you to dodge, Markk:

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.”

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.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 1.html?amp

[_Markk]

LOL....

the anonymous prosecutor says

Back any of this up, the fact's I presented contradict this. If you watched the link I gave, there are former prosecutors on tape, contradicting this, and we know there name, not just.... "the anonymous prosecutor says."

I don't really expect you to understand this, but Honor will, and certainly Schmo will...LOL...he simply couldn't care less as long as it isn't Trump...at least he is honest.

Investigations into Burisma, which only ever covered the period from before Hunter Biden’s involvement in the company

LOL, then why did Hunter hire blue star? Whether it was new or ongoing is besides the point, especially in regards to Hunter and Burisma...do you even understand what the impeachment trails were about? And why the Biden name was mention hundreds of times?

If you want the LOL's to stop, well,you have to quit making me laugh.

Focus...Hunter was hired by a mobster on the lam...and in trouble.

[_canpakes]

LOL....

the anonymous prosecutor says

Back any of this up, ...

Maybe you can read a bit more of that post and see the names that I bolded?

Aren’t you the one always accusing others of ‘not reading’?
; )

Anyhow ...

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.

[_canpakes]

...do you even understand what the impeachment trails were about?

Yep. Trump’s behavior.

You can’t answer otherwise without willingly and knowingly lying. Don’t be that guy, Markk.

Or, “LOL”.

[_canpakes]

“Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

Must be a world-wide conspiracy, right, Markk?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-ant ... 1569189782

[_honorentheos]

Former prosecutors? Seriously? It's like you failed to process anything from any of the sources that doesn't align with your view Hunter must have gotten something from Daddy to explain his salary because innuendo and supposition.

[_honorentheos]

Zero convictions of actual high level officials charged with corruption, d__a__. He used investigations to leverage people not to pursue actual convictions.

d__a__.

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

LOL I see you edited and added ad homs...

This is a talking point piece, now take it to the next step beyond defense attorneys, and un-named sources.

Back it up.

It is fact that he seized Zlochevsky property...it is fact he had many investigations stopped by Bidens approved replacement...

Back up the article Honor.

Those aren't ad homs. They are insults directed at you, not attempts to undermine your argument based on claims your source is crap. Insults, dumbass.