But, again, you didn't look at the timeline. Lutsenko not only cleared the Bidens, again, he has also stated that Yovanovitch
never gave him a "do not prosecute" list -- that it was a lie she did. Your "yet un-disproven" facts are the claims of a man who once cleared the Bidens of wrongdoing (when he closed the case two years ago) and has since retracted the various claims he made this Spring.
I'm not aware of any questionable foreign financial ties Joe Biden has. You speculate -- with no actual evidence -- that Biden somehow has profited off of his son's work for Burisma but there is no evidence to that effect. I know there was an article originating from a questionable right wing news site, but that was shown to be inaccurate. While their were payments made to Seneca Rosemont Partners, the payments were not as large as the article claimed and are payments to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer (who are owners of Seneca Partners) -- who were in business already together when they were given seats on Burisma's Board of Directors.
And the complaint about Burisma is for events that happened early this decade, specifically tied to the owner. The alleged complaint is about the lack of investigation into those events, and your complaint that Hunter Biden has not been investigated (despite Lutsenko's previous and current claims he never saw any evidence of wrongdoing, including closing the investigation two years ago); not that they are often investigated. Again, there were the things that occurred prior to Hunter joining their board, and then Republicans want it investigated for hiring Hunter Biden -- there are not mulitple claims of Burisma's wrongdoing and those charges were specifically leveled at Burisma's owner.
No, we actually don't. We have been given a name for what is assumed to be the whistleblower, there has been no verification this is true -- we just know what has been illegally leaked and who some people think fits the facts we know about the whistleblower. Further, it is being claimed since he "worked with Joe Biden" and other Democrats (as someone working in the White House during the Obama administration would have) that he must be anti-Trump. Yet, they ignore that, as a non-political worker, that he has worked with members of the Trump administration (and presumably VP Pence).
Last, any "bias" does not matter in the least; it is Argumentum ad Hominem, a logical fallacy. What matters if if the information in the report is valid, not if the person has a bias. Remember, the IG (a Trump political appointee) found that the report was "credible" and "serious," calling for it to be passed on to Congress.
Because it is the wrong way to do it, as I've explained previously. The President should have taken it to AG Barr, asked him to investigate it. AG Barr then starts an investigation and, if needed, goes to Ukraine and have them help him.
Foreign law enforcement does not know, much less investigate, based on US laws. That is why investigations by the government start and end with US law enforcement. Again, they seek help of other countries if they need help determining the facts of what occurred in that country but they do not have other countries determine if US Citizens broke US law in their country.
And the US government should have no interest in if a foreign government decides to investigate a US Citizen, other than ensuring the US Citizens rights are protected.
Now, yes, the US should be concerned about corruption in Ukraine -- but that is Ukrainian corruption, they should not be investigating US corruption for the US, that is a job for US law enforcement.
No, I don't see why he would be. Instead, in this case, it appears that there was "pressure" put on Lutsenko by Parnas and the billionaire oligarch that used Parnas, to get Lutsenko to change his story on the Biden's and, more specifically, make a story about Yovanovitch to get her removed -- for whatever reason (though likely to get someone more pro-Russian). He also reopened the investigation into Biden and Burisma he had closed two years earlier, when he claimed it showed no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. It is unclear how involved Giuliani was involved in this activity, though Lutsenko has claimed to feeling pressured by Giuliani.
Of course, Lutsenko has now retracted his statements, saying they are untrue and again has repeated he has not, from either investigation, seen evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. So when was Lutsenko lying -- and why did he only change his story when feeling pressured by Giuliani and those he was working with?
And does this potentially tie the President of the United States into Ukrainian corruption, since he sent Giuliani, whose investigation appears to have pressured Lutsenko to temporarily changing his story? It appears that rather than being the "last line" that this had come directly from the President's personal investigation.
Yes.
No, I'm stating the how this "investigation" has taken place is a crime. The facts remain, the only investigation Trump ever started in Ukraine was that for his personal use, by Giuliani.
If, after Giuliani reportedly told Trump about the things Lutsenko stated about Ukraine, Trump had gone to Barr and asked for an investigation into those allegations, Trump would have done the right thing. But, he didn't.
You could even argue if Trump had officially appointed a US government envoy to Ukraine -- though he'd likely still need to get Barr to open and investigation, and get Giuliani onboard as an independent prosecutor on the case -- then he arguably would have been fine.
But no, Trump never tells Barr, he never opens any official US investigation. Instead, despite the fact that he claimed he'd have Barr call, he only ever sends his personal attorney doing a private investigation -- never even telling US law enforcement what he's found, what he's doing in Ukraine, etc. Yes, this is corrupt and illegal, particularly since it is against a rival candidate for the Presidency.
It isn't that he asked, it is how he did it, and the things he didn't do. Particularly the fact, if there was no whistleblower, we still likely wouldn't have heard much about Trump's investigation. My guess is Trump was wanting to sit on this information, keep it secret, and only announce it at a key point of the campaign -- maybe hopefully right after Biden accepted the Democratic nomination -- then give it to Barr to open an official US investigation. Granted, that is speculation on my part but it is not unfounded, not when Trump was keeping that investigation completely hidden from US law enforcement.
No, everyone else understands that what the President is alleged to have done is wrong, if not illegal.
No, we don't have the right to know "allegations." As I've mentioned, there are reasons investigations are held in private, and police rarely state who the suspects are. Part of that is to protect the reputation of the innocent, until they feel they have the evidence to charge people with a crime.
I've stated that I have no issue with Biden being investigated, multiple times. I personally don't care for Biden and hope the Democrats do not nominate him; I'm not a Democrat.
I'm not sure why that would matter, that seems to be off topic.
(Since this is too long, I'll continue in my next post)
