You have access to the internet, obviously, yes?
This whole issue is about Mr. Biden's family ties to the Ukrainian oil conglomerate Burisma (which hired his son Hunter Biden onto its board, for political reasons, Hunter having zero oil industry expertise, and paid him $50K a month -- that would be a couple of million dollars over a few years)
Only Ukraine can investigate Ukrainian companies, like Burisma, yes?
Actually, Hunter Biden did have the expertise Burisma wanted. Yes, Hunter had no oil and gas experience -- but that isn't what they hired him for. Instead, he was hired to oversee their legal department (Hunter graduated from an Ivy League law school and previously worked in a major law firm) and to help them develop international business contacts (which was what Hunter's job was when Burisma hired him, he had co-founded BHR Partners an international venture capital firm). He was qualified for the board position Burisma hired him for.
Additionally, if you look at the Board of Directors of most any company, and many of the board will have no experience in the "core business" of the company. In another thread here, to point this out, I decided to prove this by looking at one single oil company -- since it would be comparable to Burisma. I decided that I'd pick Exxon -- as the largest of the oil companies, went to their last annual report found a captured picture of their Board and selected the first few names. What if found, the first person is an Economics professor at Stanford University -- he has no oil and gas experience. Two more of those I checked had been in insurance, one as the president of a life insurance company, the other in health insurance -- neither had any qualifications for oil and gas. None of those I looked up, and I did quit after about the first four, since I felt it proved the point, had any gas or oil experience -- none. I'm sure there are some on their board that do; but if you know about Boards, they value business knowledge and many, or even most, have no experience in the companies core business. If you check the board of Burisma, before and after Hunter Biden, you will find many board members had no oil and gas experience -- including a couple of people that worked in the Bush administration.
This whole thing about "Biden having no oil and gas experience" is right wing talking heads trying to mislead people.
As for your second question, no, not only Ukraine can investigate Burisma. First, the US can subpoena records through US courts -- and they can largely enforce them if the company has offices in the United States (at least to the point of "shutting down" their US business). Additionally, they can request the help of Ukraine. In this case, the FBI/DoJ sends agents to Ukraine and they carry out their investigation -- they are assigned Ukrainian officers to assist the US investigators, their Ukrainian officer helps them with warrants or other support.
And Biden might have gotten them (Ukraine) to hide "dirt" ?
I trust you have evidence of that? I'm not sure why Ukraine would, particularly since the people Biden dealt with in Ukraine have all been replaced with the new government elected in several months ago.
You mean the Biden family having financial ties to foreign entities?
If that was illegal, the Trump family would (mostly) all be in jail. I suppose Tiffany and one other, who don't seem to be involved in the Trump businesses, might not be.
If Biden can quash an investigation into his own family's foreign financial ties, for the "national security interest"...
why can't those foreign financial ties (plural = pattern of behavior) be investigated for the same?
No, again, I posted the evidence we currently have -- that includes a letter signed by Republican Senators -- that show that Biden did not "quash" an investigation. Yes, you have an affidavit from Shokin claiming he was fired for investigating the Bidens -- but then again, he was known to be corrupt. I'm guessing you think we should believe everything Trump's former lawyer Cohen stated, how Trump has broken numerous laws? What's more, I even gave you a link to a right wing news site that laid out the facts as we know them.
And Lutsenko has changed his story numerous times. He has stated that Shokin was not investigating, that he was corrupt. He was contacted by Giuliani, through Parnas and Fruman (the two arrested trying to flee the US for election fraud) and Lutsenko allegedly told Giuliani the same thing -- that Biden was cleared of any wrongdoing.
For some reason, though, six months later (March of this year), again after meeting with Giuliani and Parnas, Lutsenko suddenly announces he is reopening the investigation into the Biden's and that he'll investigate the 2016 US election.
Then in May (and he repeats it again in an interview in September) he again states that the Biden's are innocent, that
nothing was found in investigations. One of your sources does not seem to be dependable, particularly since he currently claims the Biden's are completely innocent.
This timeline of events is pretty interesting and does nothing to help your claims.
you. see. no. National. Security. Interest. in. US. POTUS. candidates. having. shady. foreign. financial. ties. ?
Who claimed there were no national security implications? It wasn't me. The issue is that no evidence has been found against the Biden's. The firing of Shokin, per the US government (including Republicans) say that it was a government decision that Biden merely delivered to Ukraine -- we knew Shokin was corrupt.
That doesn't start your sirens ?
No alarms ?
I've said I have no issue with an investigation done the right way -- and I even explained what the right way is. I do have issues with the President asking for Ukraine to investigate -- not the US investigating with the aid of Ukraine.
You. are. mischaracterizing. the. facts. of. the. case. Please acknowledge?
Trump did not ask Ukraine to "investigate a US citizen"
No, I'm not mischaracterizing. In fact, I've provided links for most everything I've claimed. And Biden is not a US citizen? When did he lose his citizenship?
Trump asked Ukraine to "investigate wrong-doing by a US POTUS candidate in the Ukraine"
This isn't POTUS Goliath vs. Joe Schmo David...
It's alleged global corruption influencing US elections vs. POTUS / Lutsenko / Shokin
It does not change the facts that Biden is a US citizen -- that most of the information about the firing of Shokin is available in this country, not Ukraine.
And, sometimes, we even get outright offers of assistance from those countries:
the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv — specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch...blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their “evidence” about the 2016 U.S. election
US Law, and our foreign good will, is being openly flouted.
Any complaints?
You mean the fact that those claims, as facts are coming out, appear to have been bought and paid for by Parnas and Fruman, who wanted Yovanovitch removed as Ambassador for their own reasons -- and that Giuliani may have been dragged into their crimes to accomplish it (which is one of the things Giuliani is being investigated for now)? The fact that Lutsenko has walked back most of his "claims" he made early this year -- and that he still claims Shokin is corrupt. And the fact that most of the world still views Shokin as corrupt, and therefore his claims of innocence and being railroaded by Biden carry as much weight as most criminals who claim they were "railroaded" by law enforcement?
Again, sometimes, we even get outright offers of assistance from those countries:
the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv — specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch...blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their “evidence” about the 2016 U.S. election
Now what? How does the IP get evidence, when that evidence is kept their of his hands?
Any ideas?
You are correct about requesting help for our AG:
"I. would. like. to. have. the. AG. call. you..."
However, please. acknowledge. that.
Zelensky. requested. Mr. Guiliani. instead:
If we're reading in to peoples' words, then maybe that is a subtle way of saying "we don't trust AG" ?
Yes, Trump said that on the call. And then he
never, not once, talked to AG Barr about it (and even a right wing news site for you). Instead, as the article further points out, Barr was somewhat upset that he was mentioned with Giuliani, who was not investigating for the US (but for Trump personally). Again, it only matters if Trump mentions Barr if he actually has him open an investigation and tell him to call Pres. Zelensky. Since Trump did not, it is clear what the true intention was -- and it was not to start any type of official investigation into the Bidens. That is called abuse of power, particularly since it was against a political rival.
Biden fires Shokin, benefitting personally, but permissible b/c it was for "National Security" first & foremost -- that it also benefitted his "personal security" was incidental
No, from what people "knew" at the time, Biden was gaining nothing -- except maybe that his son would be investigated. Again, what was being claimed by everyone at the time (other than Shokin) is that he was not investigating Burisma and had not for over six months.
Trump tries to restart the Shokin investigation, into shady foreign financial ties to a 2020 POTUS candidate... but that can only be construed as "personal security"... because you cannot for the life of you even dream of how shady foreign financial ties to (potential) future POTUS... might conceivably possibly be a "National Security" first & foremost issue ?
Again, it is improper for the President to ask a foreign government to investigate a US citizen, period. If he had evidence of wrongdoing he should turn that over to his AG and have him start the investigation. The AG can then request the aid of that country to help with the investigation, with the US guiding the investigation.
More to the point, you do not send your personal lawyer to meet with the President of that country to investigate -- you instead talk to your AG, which Trump did not do.
you mean, if the Biden family can quash all investigation
s (plural as in "
pattern of behavior"):
- Shokin (fired 2016)
- Lutsenko (fired 2019)
- Trump (impeachment proceedings 2019)
into their shady foreign financial friends...
and they bring those foreign friends into the Oval Office...
it would be the end of free elections in the US?
Did he so convince President Trump, Republicans and conservative Americans?
Or do you get to speak for everyone?
You mean, the common
claims of Biden, the Democrats and those whom (whose allies) Shokin was investigating?
You cannot for the life of you see a conflict of interest in such "accidentally" self-serving claims?
so, Ukrainian corruption shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole...
except when it pays the Biden family $50K / mo.
then it's alright?
You. don't. see. how. you. are. convicting. yourself. with. your. own. arguments?
If
Ukrainian corruption is so problematic... why is it ok for a
2020 POTUS candidate to have family ties to it ??
As for Lutsenko's credibility, he was in office three years and never indicted anyone for corruption. He has changed his story about the past multiple times. Yet he, despite never finding any corruption while in office, can now find the Biden's corruption, working as a private citizen?
Again, as I noted above, all of the "pro-Biden" posts in this thread sound the same to me:
- every WB who flags the Biden family for corruption is "biased, self-serving" so "evidence dismissed"
- WB who flags Trump is "biased" but "evidence accepted as Gospel"
[/quote][/QUOTE]
And it appears the rest of this is just rehashing things you said above, just attempting to put a sinister spin on things. I've explained and provided links. There really is no defense for the President's actions -- as I keep explaining how things are supposed to work. Instead, Trump sends his personal lawyer -- to the best of my knowledge (based on statements from the Justice Department) there is still no official investigation into the Bidens.
I have no issue with the Justice Department investigating the Biden's, or that they work with Ukraine if evidence leads them there. I'm not, and never have been, a fan of Biden. If he is corrupt, he definitely should be prosecuted.
However, what Trump was trying to do was not to bring either Biden to justice, rather the evidence points to this being a political "witch hunt" (to use Trump's words) to hurt Biden in the polls; one spearheaded by his personal lawyer and a couple of corrupt "pals" that are currently awaiting trial.
