Even BETTER than a call transcript

[BobRyan]

That's pretty informative when it comes to bribery and how its done to not disturb the lib media. Starts with "be a democrat politician in the Obama administration"

To his credit he was careful not to say "a prosecutor that was investigating the corrupt Burisma corporation for whom my son was working at the time". I guess you have to give him credit for that.

 

[JohnAshton]

fake analysis

Bob Ryan, read all of SimplyMe's commentary below, then research it, then retract your OP.

 

[SimplyMe]

You should look for better videos. I'm not sure how Shokin, in 2006, could have claimed that Biden was paid $3 million by Burisma -- when Hunter Biden was not hired by Burisma until 2014. Additionally, that $3 million number is from a right wing source which has been shown to be wrong.

The truth here, pretty much the entire world knew Shokin to be corrupt, and his removal was a US government policy that was even supported by Republicans. Biden, as VP, was the envoy sent to Ukraine to give the message to the Ukrainian government -- from various reports, Biden was not pushing for Shokin's ouster within the US government.

It is also worth noting, this story that Shokin is telling appears to have only come about after Giuliani, along with his friends Parnas and Fruman, the pair indicted on federal charges, talked to Shokin. It is easy to see why Shokin would want to clear his name, though with an oligarch bankrolling Parnas and Fruman, it would be interesting to know what they might have paid Shokin.

Per all reports, including others who worked with Shokin in the Prosecutor's office, Shokin was no investigating Burisma, much less Hunter Biden. The events that were supposed to be investigated all occurred around 2010 -- 4 years before Biden joined Burisma. So what VP Biden was doing was actually to get a prosecutor in office that would investigate Burisma, and allegedly his son as well.

Last, we have the statements by another Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor, one that served after Shokin, stating that he found no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.

 

[Ken Rank]

fake analysis

Bob Ryan, read all of SimplyMe's commentary below, then research it, then retract your OP.

There is nothing to retract. Biden uses his position to get his son a job he profits 3 million on. The company was corrupt and the state prosecutor was investigating that company. Joe Biden threatens to withhold loans and aid unless that prosecutor is fired and he was and was replaced with somebody else. Trump then comes in and asks the new Ukrainian leadership to investigate the corruption of that company and the Biden's involvement (which he is legally bound to do) and immediately the leftist media spins it to say that Trump was trying to bribe the Ukrainians to do dirty work on a political opponent. The guilty one here is Joe Biden... and maybe even Obama seeing old Joe (30330) invoked Obama's name in this discourse.

Trump is innocent. You all can hate him all day and night... It doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't break a law with Ukraine... but Biden did blackmail them to get a prosecutor removed who was investigating the corrupt company his son was working for.

 

[BobRyan]

You should look for better videos. I'm not sure how Shokin, in 2006, could have claimed that Biden was paid $3 million by Burisma .

I don't remember me saying in the OP that "Biden was paid $3 million by Burisma" -- what I was pointing out is Biden's own statement about his own act of bribery to influence decisions in the Ukrainian government.

But now that you mention it .. found this article "At the time Biden pushed for the firing of Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, Shokin had plans to question Hunter Biden.:

Watch Biden Brag About Bribing Ukraine To Fire Investigator Of Son's Biz


"the allegation that has been made is that Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden after the allegations surfaced in order to evade charges in the hopes that Hunter might use his influence to persuade his dad to push for the firing of the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin."
Burisma Timeline Just Leads To More Questions About Hunter Biden

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't remember me saying in the OP that "Biden was paid $3 million by Burisma" -- what I was pointing out is Biden's own statement about his own act of bribery to influence decisions in the Ukrainian government.

It was at the very start of the video you posted. Or is that video not a part of the OP?

But now that you mention it .. found this article "At the time Biden pushed for the firing of Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, Shokin had plans to question Hunter Biden.:

Watch Biden Brag About Bribing Ukraine To Fire Investigator Of Son's Biz

Yes, again, Shokin makes plenty of claims -- but there is no evidence that backs up those claims. It's almost like he's trying to claim he wasn't actually corrupt, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact he was?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, again, Shokin makes plenty of claims -- but there is no evidence that backs up those claims. It's almost like he's trying to claim he wasn't actually corrupt, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact he was?

Nobody questions whether Burisma was corrupt or Shokin was also corrupt... the point in the OP was that bribery was used to get the Ukraine to do something.

 

[SimplyMe]

There is nothing to retract. Biden uses his position to get his son a job he profits 3 million on.

I suppose you have evidence of that?

The company was corrupt and the state prosecutor was investigating that company.

No, the oligarch who founded Burisma was corrupt and Ukraine had an investigation open as to events that occurred around 2010. All the evidence shows the Chief Prosecutor, Shokin, was not investigating; despite his current claims to the contrary. It is interesting that he only started making those claims after he was visited by Parnas, Fruman, and Giuliani -- two men under indictment and a third being investigated by federal prosecutors.

Joe Biden threatens to withhold loans and aid unless that prosecutor is fired and he was and was replaced with somebody else.

No, the US Government threatened to withhold a loan unless the prosecutor, along with other anti-corruption steps, were taken. Biden is the envoy who delivers the message to Ukraine.

Trump then comes in and asks the new Ukrainian leadership to investigate the corruption of that company and the Biden's involvement (which he is legally bound to do) and immediately the leftist media spins it to say that Trump was trying to bribe the Ukrainians to do dirty work on a political opponent.

Is there a reason Trump couldn't have asked the "old" Ukrainian leadership about it; particularly since more people that worked with Shokin and knew of his corruption were still in government?

And is it not a fact that Biden is a declared candidate for President, complete with FEC filings? Again, why did Trump need to wait until after Biden declared to ask Ukraine to investigate?

More to the point, why did Trump not just ask AG Barr to open an investigation into the Bidens? Why did Trump need to ask Ukraine at all -- particularly if he is wanting to know if the Biden's broke US law? Why not have Barr, if he needs to find evidence in Ukraine, to ask for help under the joint investigation treaty that we have with Ukraine -- this would give us likely a better investigation, particularly since you'd have experts in US law (US law enforcement and prosecutors) running the investigation?

Instead, the reason there have been serious concerns raised, including by individuals appointed by Trump to the positions they now hold, is that Trump never talked to US law enforcement about this. He asked Ukraine and then had Giuliani, his personal lawyer who has stated he was in Ukraine as a private citizen (not in any type of government capacity) to work with Ukraine. Even more to the point, Trump's campaign had scheduled an advertising blitz, one centered on ads against Biden, for just after the Ukrainian President was supposed to announce that he was opening an investigation into Biden.

The guilty one here is Joe Biden... and maybe even Obama seeing old Joe (30330) invoked Obama's name in this discourse.

Again, evidence? Shokin being fired has been shown to be a US government requirement, that government agencies (such as the CIA, FBI, and State Department) agreed that Shokin was corrupt, not investigating, and needed to be fired. It was not a position spearheaded by Biden.

Trump is innocent. You all can hate him all day and night... It doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't break a law with Ukraine... but Biden did blackmail them to get a prosecutor removed who was investigating the corrupt company his son was working for.

I think we need to wait for the investigations to finish.

Further, I have no issue with an investigation into the Bidens -- but it needs to be done fairly, and by US law enforcement -- not as a political favor headed by Trump and his personal lawyer, Giuliani.

 

[SimplyMe]

Nobody questions whether Burisma was corrupt or Shokin was also corrupt... the point in the OP was that bribery was used to get the Ukraine to do something.

"Bribery," if you will, has often been used as legitimate US policy. The difference is why it is being done -- to be legitimate, it has to be for valid US government interests. In the case of Biden, it was being used to remove a corrupt prosecutor from office, as well as other anti-corruption actions.

In Trump's case, the issue is that it does not appear it was done to advance any legitimate US interest, but merely to help Pres. Trump. If he wanted the Biden's investigated, particularly with Biden being a political opponent (and Trump's ads against Biden shows Trump believes Biden is an opponent), then he should have asked AG Barr to open an investigation -- and we have a treaty with Ukraine that would allow Barr to get any help needed to investigate in Ukraine. Instead, Trump asked the Ukrainian President directly, apparently not just threatening military aid but even a chance to talk to high level administration officials (Trump blocked Pence from attending the Ukrainian inauguration), in order to get Ukraine to help his personal attorney, Giuliani, to investigate the Bidens.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

SimplyMe's posts are informative and correct. I'm mega short on time so I'm just adding a bit already shared in other threads pertaining to the topic.

One of my professors is the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, and has discussed this publicly.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Member of Ukrainian Parliament Sasha Ustinova Weighs In On What Really Happened with Ukraine’s Former Prosecutors General

Take Viktor Shokin for example, who served as the prosecutor general of Ukraine from 2015 to 2016, explained Ustinova. He is being described by some Americans as an honest man who was forced out of office in part by former Vice President Joe Biden, who supposedly asked the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he had been investigating Burisma Holdings, a Ukranian company on which his son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board.

That story couldn’t be farther from the truth, Ustinov said.

“Shokin was not trying to investigate corruption — he was trying to help a former corrupt state official, Mykola Zlochevsky, escape criminal prosecution,” she explained. “I was actually one of the people who organized demonstrations in front of the general prosecution office because everybody was so sick of Shokin, and so disappointed in him for helping former [corrupt] officials to get back into the country.”

Shokin’s successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, who was Ukraine’s prosecutor general from 2016 through August 2019, also did not have the Ukrainian people’s best interests at heart, she said. Under Lutsenko, four of the five outstanding criminal cases against Zlochevsky were shut down. Zlochevsky – a Ukrainian oligarch who founded Burisma Holdings — was required to pay a $4 million fine and was ultimately allowed back in Ukraine.

“Ukrainians know that Shokin and Lutsenko are the bad guys in our country,” she said.. “So of course it was disappointing to hear [people speaking about them in a positive way], but I hope that getting the facts and the truth out there will help a lot of people – not only in Ukraine, but also in the U.S. — to understand who is good and who is bad.”

 

[DaisyDay]

There is nothing to retract.Biden uses his position to get his son a job he profits 3 million on.

Except, he didn't. His son may have banked on his father's name, but he had his own connections.

The company was corrupt and the state prosecutor was investigating that company.

Hunter Biden's getting hired was part of Burisma's reform campaign. The prosecutor was supposed to be investigating Burisma before Biden was hired, but was seen as exacting bribes from the companies instead of really investigating.

Joe Biden threatens to withhold loans and aid unless that prosecutor is fired and he was and was replaced with somebody else.

This had nothing to do with his son and everything to do with official US foreign policy in union with the IMF and EU. Joe Biden was not acting on his own.

Trump then comes in and asks the new Ukrainian leadership to investigate the corruption of that company and the Biden's involvement (which he is legally bound to do) and immediately the leftist media spins it to say that Trump was trying to bribe the Ukrainians to do dirty work on a political opponent.

How is it that the ONLY corruption Donald is interested in is related to what the Bidens have been alleged to have done? None other than his primary political opponent in the upcoming election. Donald solicited Ukraine's interference in the 2020 election.

The guilty one here is Joe Biden... and maybe even Obama seeing old Joe (30330) invoked Obama's name in this discourse.

That's just bizarre. Biden was doing official VP duties.

Trump is innocent.

He is many, many things good and bad, but he is not that.

You all can hate him all day and night... It doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't break a law with Ukraine... but Biden did blackmail them to get a prosecutor removed who was investigating the corrupt company his son was working for.

Biden helped to remove a corrupt prosecutor who was not doing his job. Donald was corrupting Ukraine's president by withholding favors (meetings, aid) until he would announce an investigation into his political rival - for which he had already purchased coordinating campaign ads. Unfortunately for Donald, his plot was exposed before the announcement could be made - but the ads still ran.

This has nothing to do with "hating" Donald. His malfeasance is being exposed as it should be.

 

[JohnAshton]

There is nothing to retract. Biden uses his position to get his son a job he profits 3 million on. The company was corrupt and the state prosecutor was investigating that company. Joe Biden threatens to withhold loans and aid unless that prosecutor is fired and he was and was replaced with somebody else. Trump then comes in and asks the new Ukrainian leadership to investigate the corruption of that company and the Biden's involvement (which he is legally bound to do) and immediately the leftist media spins it to say that Trump was trying to bribe the Ukrainians to do dirty work on a political opponent. The guilty one here is Joe Biden... and maybe even Obama seeing old Joe (30330) invoked Obama's name in this discourse.

Trump is innocent. You all can hate him all day and night... It doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't break a law with Ukraine... but Biden did blackmail them to get a prosecutor removed who was investigating the corrupt company his son was working for.

You are doubling down on fake analysis; Bob Ryan, read all of SimplyMe's commentary below, then research it, then retract your OP.

 

[BobRyan]

"Bribery," if you will, has often been used as legitimate US policy.

So I guess that's off the table? Or only when Biden does it and his son is affected by the result?

The difference is why it is being done -- to be legitimate, it has to be for valid US government interests.

Ok .. so U.S. Government interest in crime and corruption in a partner state where that crime may involve some U.S. citizen. In this case a request to discover the extent to which that is the case.

In Trump's case, the issue is that it does not appear it was done to advance any legitimate US interest,

Because the U.S. Government has no interest in knowing if any criminal activity took place in Ukraine if that activity was connected with democrat officials??

When has that ever been "a thing"??

 

[BobRyan]

Member of Ukrainian Parliament Sasha Ustinova Weighs In On What Really Happened with Ukraine’s Former Prosecutors General

only repeats the one fact everyone agrees with "“Shokin ... he was trying to help a former corrupt state official, Mykola Zlochevsky, escape criminal prosecution,” she explained. “I was actually one of the people who organized demonstrations in front of the general prosecution office because everybody was so sick of Shokin, and so disappointed in him for helping former [corrupt] officials to get back into the country.”
[/quote]

No one claims Shokin had no corruption issues. The question is regarding his intent to investigate into Burisma and when it stopped.

 

[SimplyMe]

So I guess that's off the table? Or only when Biden does it and his son is affected by the result?

No, again, it is fine when done for a legitimate US government interest. For example, tariffs are a form of "bribery" or "extortion," basically, give us a favorable trade deal and we won't put high taxes on your products. No one has claimed Trump broke the law simply by imposing various sanctions or tariffs.

Ok .. so U.S. Government interest in crime and corruption in a partner state where that crime may involve some U.S. citizen. In this case a request to discover the extent to which that is the case.

Because the U.S. Government has no interest in knowing if any criminal activity took place in Ukraine if that activity was connected with democrat offici
When has that ever been "a thing"??

If the government has an interest, the government should start an investigation -- that did not happen here. Instead, we asked a foreign government to investigate a US Citizen. And since Ukraine does not investigate if US law was broken, just exactly what is Ukraine supposed to investigate?

Let's try this, see if this will help: In the first, if there is a corruption in a foreign country and we want them to investigate and end the corruption before we give them money.

Let's put this a different way. In the first, there are known corrupt Ukrainian individuals, serving in Ukrainian government positions, and we want those individuals removed from office and even investigated to see if they broke Ukrainian laws.

Can you see the difference? In one case, we have a President asking a foreign government to investigate issues within their government, where some individuals are corrupt and involving their citizens, and to take the steps to fix the issues.

In the other, we have a President asking a foreign government to investigate a US Citizen, someone running against the current president, and asking them to give the information, and to work with, the President's personal lawyer, and the lawyer has stated he was not working in any type of government capacity. The President's campaign also schedules political advertisements, against the person they asked the foreign government to investigate, to run around the time that the foreign government says they will announce the investigation.

only repeats the one fact everyone agrees with "“Shokin ... he was trying to help a former corrupt state official, Mykola Zlochevsky, escape criminal prosecution,” she explained. “I was actually one of the people who organized demonstrations in front of the general prosecution office because everybody was so sick of Shokin, and so disappointed in him for helping former [corrupt] officials to get back into the country.”

No one claims Shokin had no corruption issues. The question is regarding his intent to investigate into Burisma and when it stopped.

How about this:

“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” said Daria Kaleniuk of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”

 

[JohnAshton]

Any defense of Trump is criminal when it comes to trying to protect him for asking another country to interfere in the 2020 elections.