House releases overview of evidence against Biden

[The Barbarian]

About the OP, some investigation of Burisma did happen by Shokin's predecessor, it was dormant by the time Obama had Biden push to get rid of Shokin, and Shokin did not prosecute Burisma at all. Shokin's ouster was a coordinated effort with US allies as he was seen as corrupt and the IMF was hesitant to spend more money on Ukraine with a corrupt person like Shokin in the position he was in.

Well, that's a surprise. I'm sure the whataboutism will stop now that we know this is the case.

 

[FreeinChrist]

There does not have to be evidence that money went from son to dad in order to find a guilty verdict on bribery at an impeachment trial. If a family member benefits that is enough for a conviction.

find anything to back that up legally?

 

[Ana the Ist]

To quote you, " the impeachment inquire SHOULD pull up" meaning there currently isn't anything to be claiming abuse of power.

No, there is...you're living in full blown denial of reality.

There's a giant pile of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests this whole administration is crooked.

No, they didn't use the word "evidence". The words used were "believe" and "potential". That is not "yes, we have evidence".

No I watched the whole 6 hours. They turned over reams of evidence to the GOP.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The truth is that British officials froze the bank account of about $23 mil belonging to Mr. Zlochevsky, owner of Burisma, for accusations of money laundering, and he had to fight in court to get it back. The Ukraine prosecutor did NOT cooperate with the British as in not giving them documentation.

Shokin did seize some assets that belonged to the family (plots of land, a big house, a luzury car) in Feb. 2015. It was released in Dec. 15th because Shokin did not meet the burden of proof to remove assets (a law had been passed tightening the rules for seizures). No one from the prosecutors office was at court because they believed the jusrisdiction had changed, but the decision to release was not made until Jan 2016.
It was considered mismanagement by the US and allies and the IMF and there was a public outcry in Ukraine. They scrambled toget the seizure reauthorized and it was in Feb. 2016. However, the prosecutor's office looked bad. And then the seizure was then canceled in Nov. 2016.

Wikipedia has a nice article that has Shokin issue spelled out well.

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, improperly withheld a loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board.[1] As part of efforts by Donald Trump[2] and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign.[3]​

​

Joe Biden did withhold the loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor[4] who was seen as corrupt and failing to clean up Ukrainian corruption,[5] in accordance with the official and bipartisan policy of the United States, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.[6][7]​

​

United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration."[8][9][10] The New York Times reported in May 2021 that a federal criminal investigation was examining a possible role by current and former Ukrainian officials, including whether they used former Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who was the subject of a separate but related federal investigation, to spread unsubstantiated claims.[11]​

​

​

​

Forget the Wikipedia article...we have Joe Biden's own words. They didn't want to fire Shokin, and Joe is proud of abusing his power to that end.

 

[Pommer]

Bribery is a high crime and is an impeachable offense according to the U.S. Constitution. If Hunter received money it is bribery according to both the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the International Bribery Standards signed onto by the Obama/Biden administration back in 2011.

Is this a FARA thing?

 

[Pommer]

We are moving very quickly toward a Stalinist type of justice. Lavrentiy Beria persecuted political enemies and many many died because of his actions under Stalin.

How does one prosecute (alleged) criminals without prosecuting them?
There were actual laws (alleged) to have been broken, this isn’t only some political theater, even though there is some of that in here.

 

[Pommer]

find anything to back that up legally?

It goes like this
1. The Bidens are crooked
2. The Bidens made money
3. We don’t yet know what the money was to pay for
4. But the Bidens are crooked so it has to be a criminal thing probably
5. Let us “investigate”!

This is not how “justice” works in this country and (some) people appear to be mad about that.

​

 

[Aldebaran]

It goes like this
1. The Bidens are crooked
2. The Bidens made money
3. We don’t yet know what the money was to pay for
4. But the Bidens are crooked so it has to be a criminal thing probably
5. Let us “investigate”!

This is not how “justice” works in this country and (some) people appear to be mad about that.

​

Investigations have become the norm to get to "justice". We've gotten used to them since 2016.

 

[Pommer]

Investigations have become the norm to get to "justice". We've gotten used to them since 2016.

I seem to recall Ken Starr had had a thing going in the 1990s, perhaps you haven’t been following politics for that long?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Bribery is a high crime and is an impeachable offense according to the U.S. Constitution. If Hunter received money it is bribery according to both the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the International Bribery Standards signed onto by the Obama/Biden administration back in 2011.

So the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal fora U.S. person or company to offer, pay, or promise to pay money or anything of value to any foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.

So IF Burisma bribed Hunter Biden or the purposes of ...... let's say to influence the prosecutor in their favor - and it is in Ukraine, it is not a violation of that law. It would not be a US person doing the bribing. IF Hunter was the one who paid money to Burisma for some gain, that would fall possibly as a violation of that act. Foreign nationals would have to be in the US in order for it to apply to them.

Appears Republicans are really reaching out to find something..

 

[Aldebaran]

I seem to recall Ken Starr had had a thing going in the 1990s, perhaps you haven’t been following politics for that long?

Hey, maybe we can look all the way back to the 1960s when Kennedy was shot.
Only goes to prove my point that investigations haven't gone out of style when it comes to seeking justice.

 

[Valletta]

You didn't read it very carefully...

"Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit the willful use of the mails or any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person."

A person isn't guilty of anything unless they know it's being used that way. So you're right back at zero unless you can show Joe Biden knew about it.

If you can show Hunter knew what it was for, you might be able to get him. But that really won't help the whataboutism intended to justify the crimes Trump has been indicted for.

As I've explained before, there has to be a quid pro quo. If it is shown that Joe really had no knowledge about Hunter's business, never discussed the business with him, and had no idea Hunter would receive money for Joe's favors then Joe is innocent. In other words, if it was just a coincidence Hunter was on the board of Burisma, that Joe had no knowledge that Hunter was on the board and receiving a large sum of money for a position he was unqualified for, and it just so happened it was a coincidence that Joe fired the prosecutor who was going after Burisma, a prosecutor who had already seized the assets of the CEO of Burisma, Joe's innocent of bribery in this particular incident.

 

[Valletta]

How does one prosecute (alleged) criminals without prosecuting them?
There were actual laws (alleged) to have been broken, this isn’t only some political theater, even though there is some of that in here.

Yes, the Soviets often would definitely allege a law had been broken, as did other communist regimes, and hold a trial. On occasion the witnesses had accidents before any trial. But as is going on here in our country, first they would try to shut down their free speech and use intimidation tactics.

 

[Pommer]

Hey, maybe we can look all the way back to the 1960s when Kennedy was shot.
Only goes to prove my point that investigations haven't gone out of style when it comes to seeking justice.

“seeking justice” is lifting quite a load there.

 

[Valletta]

So the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal fora U.S. person or company to offer, pay, or promise to pay money or anything of value to any foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.

So IF Burisma bribed Hunter Biden or the purposes of ...... let's say to influence the prosecutor in their favor - and it is in Ukraine, it is not a violation of that law. It would not be a US person doing the bribing. IF Hunter was the one who paid money to Burisma for some gain, that would fall possibly as a violation of that act. Foreign nationals would have to be in the US in order for it to apply to them.

Appears Republicans are really reaching out to find something..

If Burisma wanted the prosecutor fired, and Joe offered to fire the prosecutor, then Joe would be guilty of bribery.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, the Soviets often would definitely allege a law had been broken, as did other communist regimes, and hold a trial. On occasion the witnesses had accidents before any trial. But as is going on here in our country, first they would try to shut down their free speech and use intimidation tactics.

[Bolding mine] What are you talking about?

 

[Pommer]

If Burisma wanted the prosecutor fired, and Joe offered to fire the prosecutor, then Joe would be guilty of bribery.

What did Joe get for this (again)?

 

[Aldebaran]

“seeking justice” is lifting quite a load there.

Yeah, well there's often a load to be lifted before the truth is revealed.

 

[Aldebaran]

What did Joe get for this (again)?

The seat of the most powerful office in the world. No biggie.

 

[Pommer]

The seat of the most powerful office in the world. No biggie.

Burisma put him there, did they?