PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
So maybe a Republican supporter can explain the issue here....
In February 2014 the new Ukrainian Government came to power and was convinced by Western Nations to start investigations into corruption by former leaders. One of those people was the ex-environment minister, Mykola Zlochevsky, who in 2002 had founded one of the largest natural gas companies in Ukraine, Burisma Holdings, registering it in Cyprus.
Any issues yet?
Part of this was the U.K. freezing $23 million in London bank accounts that they said were linked to Zlochevsky and they also sought help from the Ukraine to build a money-laundering case against him. In response, the Ukraine opened investigations into Zlochevsky and Burisma with Viktor Shokin handling parts of the investigation as first a deputy prosecutor and then later on as the prosecutor general.
Zlochevsky and Burisma both denied doing anything wrong, but in May they started hiring overseas claiming it was an attempt to clean up their image and be more transparent. As part of that they hired Hunter Biden and Devon Archer onto the Board , paying them via the Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, about $225,000 a year for the position (according to the Boston Globe, a Board Member on a large Oil and Gas Company can expect to be paid up to about $258,000 a year.)
Any issues yet?
In December of 2014, the US sent the Ukrainian Government a letter saying that the Prosecutor was not helping the UK case, and according to the new Deputy Prosecutor, Vitaliy Kasko, Shokin had allowed the case to languish uninvestigated. The case in the UK ended up collapsing, and according to the US Ambassador of the time, this was because the Ukrainian Prosecutorial Office had subverted the UK probe through their inaction.
Any issues with this so far?
Once the UK investigations fell through the US Embassy sent through to the State Department that Shokin was failing to investigate corruption charges, and that pressure needed to be applied to force a change. This was backed up by the IMF and also public protests in the Ukraine itself where the general public were calling for change because Shokin wasn't doing his job (according to everyone but Shokin himself.)
At this point the US sent Joe Binden to the Ukraine with the message of, "Get rid of Shokin and get the corruption investigations moving, or you lose a $1 billion loan guarantee." He did this, telling them “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money." Following this, Shokin was fired in March of 2016, and the loan guarantee came through. Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed the new Prosecutor and it appears that the Investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma was quickly restarted, because in a little over 6 months later, January of 2017, Burisma issued a statement saying that all legal proceedings and criminal allegations against them and Zlochevsky were closed and they agreed to paid any taxes they were found to owe.
So all parties, with the exception Shokin, agree that Shokin was failing to do his job and was allowing that corruption investigation to languish, resulting in the collapse of the UK Investigation, and that the only way to complete the investigation was to remove him and put in place someone willing to actually do the job.
Yuriy Lutsenko has subsequently passed to US Authorities all payment information from Burisma to US Citizens, including Hunter Biden, for US to make sure that Taxes were paid correctly, and the IRD has never started any proceedings into those payments.
So... Biden, following the State Department, forced the removal of a Prosecutor, who according to everyone but himself, was failing to investigate corruption charges which resulted in the failure of an impeding case. Hunter was brought onto the company's board after that case was started and was paid a fair wage and seems to have paid the correct taxes on that wage. The new prosecutor restarted the case and found no evidence of corruption by the company or its founder. Hunter was never suspected or investigated for corruption in his dealing with the company or its board, nor was the company during his time as a member of the board.
So please, can you explain where the issue is here?
In February 2014 the new Ukrainian Government came to power and was convinced by Western Nations to start investigations into corruption by former leaders. One of those people was the ex-environment minister, Mykola Zlochevsky, who in 2002 had founded one of the largest natural gas companies in Ukraine, Burisma Holdings, registering it in Cyprus.
Any issues yet?
Part of this was the U.K. freezing $23 million in London bank accounts that they said were linked to Zlochevsky and they also sought help from the Ukraine to build a money-laundering case against him. In response, the Ukraine opened investigations into Zlochevsky and Burisma with Viktor Shokin handling parts of the investigation as first a deputy prosecutor and then later on as the prosecutor general.
Zlochevsky and Burisma both denied doing anything wrong, but in May they started hiring overseas claiming it was an attempt to clean up their image and be more transparent. As part of that they hired Hunter Biden and Devon Archer onto the Board , paying them via the Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, about $225,000 a year for the position (according to the Boston Globe, a Board Member on a large Oil and Gas Company can expect to be paid up to about $258,000 a year.)
Any issues yet?
In December of 2014, the US sent the Ukrainian Government a letter saying that the Prosecutor was not helping the UK case, and according to the new Deputy Prosecutor, Vitaliy Kasko, Shokin had allowed the case to languish uninvestigated. The case in the UK ended up collapsing, and according to the US Ambassador of the time, this was because the Ukrainian Prosecutorial Office had subverted the UK probe through their inaction.
Any issues with this so far?
Once the UK investigations fell through the US Embassy sent through to the State Department that Shokin was failing to investigate corruption charges, and that pressure needed to be applied to force a change. This was backed up by the IMF and also public protests in the Ukraine itself where the general public were calling for change because Shokin wasn't doing his job (according to everyone but Shokin himself.)
At this point the US sent Joe Binden to the Ukraine with the message of, "Get rid of Shokin and get the corruption investigations moving, or you lose a $1 billion loan guarantee." He did this, telling them “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money." Following this, Shokin was fired in March of 2016, and the loan guarantee came through. Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed the new Prosecutor and it appears that the Investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma was quickly restarted, because in a little over 6 months later, January of 2017, Burisma issued a statement saying that all legal proceedings and criminal allegations against them and Zlochevsky were closed and they agreed to paid any taxes they were found to owe.
So all parties, with the exception Shokin, agree that Shokin was failing to do his job and was allowing that corruption investigation to languish, resulting in the collapse of the UK Investigation, and that the only way to complete the investigation was to remove him and put in place someone willing to actually do the job.
Yuriy Lutsenko has subsequently passed to US Authorities all payment information from Burisma to US Citizens, including Hunter Biden, for US to make sure that Taxes were paid correctly, and the IRD has never started any proceedings into those payments.
So... Biden, following the State Department, forced the removal of a Prosecutor, who according to everyone but himself, was failing to investigate corruption charges which resulted in the failure of an impeding case. Hunter was brought onto the company's board after that case was started and was paid a fair wage and seems to have paid the correct taxes on that wage. The new prosecutor restarted the case and found no evidence of corruption by the company or its founder. Hunter was never suspected or investigated for corruption in his dealing with the company or its board, nor was the company during his time as a member of the board.
So please, can you explain where the issue is here?
Last edited:
