Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

Spencerfreeman · 09-11-2019 8:47pm

Overheal wrote: »

You have proof he did know Hunter was joining the board of Burisma?

Per the video what did the Bidens do that was wrong?

Here's a photo claimed to be from 2104 the year that Hunter joined Burisma. It shows that Joe knew Devon Archer of Burisma.
That's enough for me.

As to your second question, I've only claimed that Joe lied.

Overheal · 09-11-2019 9:03pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Here's a photo claimed to be from 2104 the year that Hunter joined Burisma. It shows that Joe knew Devon Archer of Burisma.
That's enough for me.

As to your second question, I've only claimed that Joe lied.

Lying isn’t criminal. But this photo doesn’t establish when Joe knew or indeed when, and it’s given that the question he was answering related to whether he would have advised his son to join the board.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 5:09pm

So Shifty Schiff will not allow Republicans to have Joe Biden and his son Hunter testify in the impeachment hearings. I guess we just don’t need to get to the bottom of the quid pro Joe or his son’s corruption involving Ukraine. Truth! We don’t need no stinkin’ truth… because Orange Man Bad.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 5:18pm

notobtuse wrote: »

So Shifty Schiff will not allow Republicans to have Joe Biden and his son Hunter testify in the impeachment hearings. I guess we just don’t need to get to the bottom of the quid pro Joe or his son’s corruption involving Ukraine. Truth! We don’t need no stinkin’ truth… because Orange Man Bad.

Here’s the bottom of it you’re welcome

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html

Neither Hunter nor Joe can speak to why Trump violated federal campaign law, or why his private attorneys pressured Ukrainian officials for the personal benefit of the President (their words) not the policy of the United States.

James Brown · 11-11-2019 5:39pm

notobtuse wrote: »

So Shifty Schiff will not allow Republicans to have Joe Biden and his son Hunter testify in the impeachment hearings. I guess we just don’t need to get to the bottom of the quid pro Joe or his son’s corruption involving Ukraine. Truth! We don’t need no stinkin’ truth… because Orange Man Bad.

Have you passed this evidence over to the Space Patrol?

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 6:00pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Have you passed this evidence over to the Space Patrol?

Shiff For Brains is already aware that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was given a list of "people whom we should not prosecute" from US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, during one of their meetings. But Shiff will not allow any testimony to back up Trump’s assertion that something has been rotten in the state of Ukraine.

Anybody ever find out about that $37 billion in aid from the US to Ukraine that went missing?

James Brown · 11-11-2019 6:08pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Shiff For Brains is already aware that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was given a list of "people whom we should not prosecute" from US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, during one of their meetings. But Shiff will not allow any testimony to back up Trump’s assertion that something has been rotten in the state of Ukraine.

Anybody ever find out about that $37 billion in aid from the US to Ukraine that went missing?

So none. Fair enough.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 6:46pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So none. Fair enough.

And now Ukraine plans to fire the prosecutor who led investigations into the firm where Joe Biden’s son served on the board. Kostiantyn Kulyk compiled a seven-page dossier on the business activities of Hunter Biden in Ukraine and met with Rudy Giuliani to discuss accusations against the Bidens. Looks like Ukrainian officials are covering their tracks in case Trump doesn’t win reelection. But none of this is worthy of any investigation I guess because it would justify the Orange Overlords request Ukraine look into possible corruption by some of our US officials and their family members.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-prosecutor-excl/exclusive-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-who-discussed-bidens-with-giuliani-source-idUSKBN1XE20C?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

Overheal · 11-11-2019 6:48pm

"The source said a decision had been taken to fire Kulyk for failing to show up for an exam that all employees of the General Prosecutor’s Office have been ordered to pass to keep their jobs during a clean-up of the prosecution service.

Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka has already fired more than 400 prosecutors, or around a third of all staff.

Some prosecutors have told Reuters that many of those sacked had refused to sit the exam in protest at what they see as a purge designed to cement new President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s political control of the service.

Zelenskiy has said the overhaul is essential because the office is widely distrusted by Ukrainians and had been seen as a political tool for the well-connected to punish their enemies.

Trump discussed investigating the Bidens during a July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy. Trump’s Democratic opponents have launched impeachment proceedings, arguing that Trump abused power to press Ukraine to hurt a political foe. Trump calls the investigation a witch hunt and denies wrongdoing.

Reuters was unable to reach Kulyk for comment. He was not present at a home address where Reuters has spoken to him in the past.

Kulyk did not show up for the mandatory exam, which was imposed last month, the source said.

He also did not file an official justification for missing it, as other prosecutors have done, and will consequently be dismissed, the source said. His dismissal will take place by Dec. 31, if not earlier."

What is it you people say: a nothing burger?

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 7:02pm

notobtuse wrote: »

So Shifty Schiff will not allow Republicans to have Joe Biden and his son Hunter testify in the impeachment hearings. I guess we just don’t need to get to the bottom of the quid pro Joe or his son’s corruption involving Ukraine. Truth! We don’t need no stinkin’ truth… because Orange Man Bad.

Why would they?
It's just another distraction technique by the GOP.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 7:09pm

Cody montana wrote: »

Why would they?
It's just another distraction technique by the GOP.

I tend to disagree that seeking help in fighting corruption and interference in our elections is just another distraction technique.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 7:15pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I tend to disagree that seeking help in fighting corruption and interference in our elections is just another distraction technique.

What else has Trump done to give you any inkling he cares about election interference?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/republican-senators-block-election-security-legislation/index.html

Do you agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 7:31pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I tend to disagree that seeking help in fighting corruption and interference in our elections is just another distraction technique.

This is an impeachment inquiry about Trump withholding aid to Ukraine for dirt on a political opponent.

WHY would the Biden's be there?

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 7:37pm

Cody montana wrote: »

This is an impeachment inquiry about Trump withholding aid to Ukraine for dirt on a political opponent.

WHY would the Biden's be there?

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a powerful US elected official (who admitted to a quid pro quo on TV) along with a member of his family who took duplicitous advantage of daddy's name. You can keep trying to spin it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 7:38pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a powerful US elected official (who admitted to a quid pro quo on TV) along with a member of his family who took duplicitous advantage of daddy's name. You can keep trying to spin it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

It's bribery.
You are welcome.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 7:40pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a powerful US elected official (who admitted to a quid pro quo on TV) along with a member of his family who took duplicitous advantage of daddy's name. You can keep trying to spin it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

So you agree that Trump was looking for dirt on Joe Biden. Thank you.

Loafing Oaf · 11-11-2019 7:52pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election

You do know Joe Biden wasn't running in the 2016 presidential election?

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 7:53pm

Cody montana wrote: »

It's bribery.
You are welcome.

Ah yes 'bribery.' The flavor of the week for impeachment justification since, what... the last 6 or 7 reasons for impeachment amounted to zilch. What do you think the reason for impeachment will be next week? What do you think next weeks reason will be, and the week after that? Treason? Murder? Being an alien?

Put Shiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the faux whistleblower, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Tim Morrison on the stand, and prove it's not just a witch-hunt run in a kangaroo court by the DNC. Yeah, right... good luck with that.

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 7:57pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You do know Joe Biden wasn't running in the 2016 presidential election?

EXACTLY! You do know Trump's request to Zelensky was to look into Ukraine's general interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption by one of our officials?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 7:59pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Ah yes 'bribery.' The flavor of the week for impeachment justification since, what... the last 6 or 7 reasons for impeachment amounted to zilch. What do you think the reason for impeachment will be next week? What do you think next weeks reason will be, and the week after that? Treason? Murder? Being an alien?

Put Shiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the faux whistleblower, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Tim Morrison on the stand, and prove it's not just a witch-hunt run in a kangaroo court by the DNC. Yeah, right... good luck with that.

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

You complain about a Kangaroo Court but want to prove one doesn't exist by having the House call a bunch of people who can't offer us any additional clarity about the impeachable acts of Donald Trump?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 8:00pm

notobtuse wrote: »

EXACTLY! You do know Trump's request to Zelensky was to look into Ukraine's general interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption by one of our officials?

It was to get dirt on Biden. He also asked China to get dirt on Biden from the lawn.

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 8:15pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Ah yes 'bribery.' The flavor of the week for impeachment justification since, what... the last 6 or 7 reasons for impeachment amounted to zilch. What do you think the reason for impeachment will be next week? What do you think next weeks reason will be, and the week after that? Treason? Murder? Being an alien?

Put Shiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the faux whistleblower, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Tim Morrison on the stand, and prove it's not just a witch-hunt run in a kangaroo court by the DNC. Yeah, right... good luck with that.

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

This is the first impeachment inquiry, so I don't really know what you're on about.
Withholding aid in order to gain political dirt is bribery.
And it's very worthy of impeachment.

We know the facts though, 6 people have confirmed it...….so far.
Republicans can't attack the facts, so they'll attack the credibility of the witnesses instead.

Loafing Oaf · 11-11-2019 8:22pm

notobtuse wrote: »

EXACTLY! You do know Trump's request to Zelensky was to look into Ukraine's general interference in the 2016 election

What form did this alleged interference take if it wasn't improper influence over Biden?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 8:24pm

notobtuse wrote:

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

No, Fox News — impeachment witness didn't hold secret talks with Dem staffer
Marie Yovanovitch didn’t commit perjury — and she actually followed the rules, too

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/no-fox-news-impeachment-witness-didnt-hold-secret-talks-dem-staffer

WRITTEN BY ERIC KLEEFELD PUBLISHED 11/08/19 3:51 PM EST

Fox News launched a new accusation against one of the key witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, alleging in an online piece that former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had “communicated via her personal email account” with a House Democratic staffer on a “quite delicate” issue. And even worse, other right-wing voices are now saying she committed perjury about the matter.

But this story is not what it seems. Instead, it’s yet another right-wing media red herring to distract from the impeachment inquiry, and which also falls apart upon even the closest inspection of its claims.

It starts with a Democratic staffer, whom Fox News identifies as Laura Carey with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, asking Yovanovitch in an email to meet up “to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring.” The staffer said she would “appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right."

Tucker Carlson ran a report on this story Thursday night, saying Yovanovitch had, in fact, responded to the email, and claiming that she said she hadn’t in her testimony:

Video file
Video Player

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Yovanovitch claimed that she never personally responded to it, never responded to the Democratic staffer. In fact, it turns out that she did respond. In fact, she said she, quote, “look forward to chatting with you,” to that staffer, and as Congressman [Lee] Zeldin pointed out, the ambassador's original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath.

So maybe she’ll get hauled into court like Roger Stone, and threatened with life in prison. Ha! Just kidding.

Zeldin himself has even shared a video of this report, retweeting a link from The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra, who repeated Carlson’s suggestion that Yovanovitch had committed perjury.

https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192635800300740609?s=20

Zeldin also told Fox News, per the network’s report: “I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department. It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn't answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

But the story quickly crumbles. Even Fox’s own report included part of the testimony explaining that the Democratic staffer was the one who started the communication by sending a message to Yovanovitch’s personal email. Furthermore, Yovanovitch never told the committee that she hadn’t responded at all to the staffer, but instead said she had pursued official channels.

As Yovanovitch told the committee, and which was also reproduced in the Fox online piece: “So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, 'Who should I be in touch with?'”

Fox’s report even reprinted Yovanovitch’s full email in response to the staffer — part of which Carlson excluded — containing what else she said after the initial pleasantries above: “Thanks for reaching out -- and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.” (Emphasis added.)

The relevant exchange is found in pages 213 to 216 of Yovanovitch’s deposition, when Zeldin asked: “And what did you do after you received the email?”

“I alerted the State Department,” Yovanovitch responded, “because I'm still an employee and so matters are generally handled through the State Department.”

“Was that person responded to by you or someone else?”

“I believe, yes, by [redacted] in the Legislative Affairs office,” Yovanovitch answered.

Zeldin then asked if she had received any subsequent request, to which Yovanovitch said there had been a second email from this staffer. “I didn't respond to that email, because I had already transferred everything to the State Department and I figured they would be in touch, and they were.”

At worst, Yovanovitch clumsily neglected to mention in laying out the events that when she referred the matter to the official channels, she had also sent this person a brief email telling them that the request had been so referred. But even then, she specifically said that she did not respond to the staffer’s second email, showing just how thoroughly she was following proper procedures.

Nevertheless, Carlson’s accusation has been dutifully picked up by outlets and right-wing figures including RedState, The Daily Wire, Townhall, The Daily Caller, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, and talk radio host and NBC News contributor Hugh Hewitt."

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 8:24pm

Cody montana wrote: »

This is the first impeachment inquiry, so I don't really know what you're on about.
Withholding aid in order to gain political dirt is bribery.
And it's very worthy of impeachment.

We know the facts though, 6 people have confirmed it...….so far.
Republicans can't attack the facts, so they'll attack the credibility of the witnesses instead.

What is this 'gain political dirt' nonsense? Joe Biden admitted to a quid pro quo about giving Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of or Biden would not give them the millions in aid. Trump asked them to look into it... that is all. If there is nothing then what does Biden or the DNC have to worry about?

And how many of those 6 people had direct knowledge of what Trump wanted? NONE! They all merely 'thought' that is what Trump wanted. Mere opinions of some without direct knowledge is not impeachable. Of course the party that controls the House can impeach a president because they don't like the color of his tie... or hat.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 8:28pm

notobtuse wrote: »

What is this 'gain political dirt' nonsense? Joe Biden admitted to a quid pro quo about giving Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of or Biden would not give them the millions in aid. Trump asked them to look into it... that is all. If there is nothing then what does Biden or the DNC have to worry about?

Why would Trump need Ukraine to investigate something that Biden so clearly admitted to a year before, actions which took place years before, as it was the policy of the United States the EU and the IMF to replace Shokin with a prosecutor that would not protect his mob buddies.

Trump wanted dirt. He wanted something that once found would be weaponized against Biden's presidential campaign. There's not a way to polish that.

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 8:49pm

notobtuse wrote: »

What is this 'gain political dirt' nonsense? Joe Biden admitted to a quid pro quo about giving Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of or Biden would not give them the millions in aid. Trump asked them to look into it... that is all. If there is nothing then what does Biden or the DNC have to worry about?

And how many of those 6 people had direct knowledge of what Trump wanted? NONE! They all merely 'thought' that is what Trump wanted. Mere opinions of some without direct knowledge is not impeachable. Of course the party that controls the House can impeach a president because they don't like the color of his tie... or hat.

I'm not sure is you are aware, but there is kind of a big election next year.

The corrupt prosecutor was fired with the help of other world leaders, the EU, the IMF.

One of those who testified was actually listening in on the call.

AGAIN, bribery is a crime.

Other than that, well done.

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 8:53pm

Overheal wrote: »

Why would Trump need Ukraine to investigate something that Biden so clearly admitted to a year before, actions which took place years before, as it was the policy of the United States the EU and the IMF to replace Shokin with a prosecutor that would not protect his mob buddies.

Trump wanted dirt. He wanted something that once found would be weaponized against Biden's presidential campaign. There's not a way to polish that.

Don't be silly, NOT firing the corrupt prosecutor was the right way to handle the situation.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 8:55pm

Cody montana wrote: »

I'm not sure is you are aware, but there is kind of a big election next year.

The corrupt prosecutor was fired with the help of other world leaders, the EU, the IMF.

One of those who testified was actually listening in on the call.

AGAIN, bribery is a crime.

Other than that, well done.

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 8:57pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

So should the CORRUPT prosecutor not have been fired then?

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 8:59pm

Cody montana wrote: »

So should the CORRUPT prosecutor not have been fired then?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you think it was CORRUPT to give Ukraine ONLY SIX HOURS to fire him or they don't get the money?

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 8:59pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

BTW, when was Hunter Biden under investigation?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:01pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

Hunter Biden wasn't the target of the probe and the probe was started before he joined the board. But, you know this.

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 9:05pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you think it was CORRUPT to give Ukraine ONLY SIX HOURS to fire him or they don't get the money?

What do you mean maybe no?
If he was corrupt, he should have been fired.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:09pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you think it was CORRUPT to give Ukraine ONLY SIX HOURS to fire him or they don't get the money?

Nope. But again, you know this.

Removing Shokin was the policy of the State Department, the White House, the GOP-controlled Congress, the International Monetary Fund, and the EU.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 9:10pm

Cody montana wrote: »

BTW, when was Hunter Biden under investigation?

Don’t know offhand when it started but as Viktor Shokin was continuing that investigations into corruption surrounding Burisma Holdings who Hunter had a lucrative deal with despite having no expertise in the industry (Shokin claimed it was an appointment made by Zlochevsky "in order to protect himself"), and around June or July of 2015, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves. And Shokin was told Biden had held up US aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 9:13pm

Cody montana wrote: »

What do you mean maybe no?
If he was corrupt, he should have been fired.

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:16pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Don’t know offhand when it started but as Viktor Shokin was continuing that investigations into corruption surrounding Burisma Holdings who Hunter had a lucrative deal with despite having no expertise in the industry (Shokin claimed it was an appointment made by Zlochevsky "in order to protect himself"), and around June or July of 2015, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves. And Shokin was told Biden had held up US aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

The allegation at the heart of the controversy is that while Mr. Biden was vice president, he pushed to have Ukraine’s top prosecutor removed for investigating a company connected to Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma. Videos pushing this theory began appearing on Twitter in late September and early October and have been viewed tens of millions of times. Mr. Trump’s campaign has also asserted the claim in ads on Facebook.

Vice President Biden was overseeing American policy toward Ukraine at the time, and he did push for the removal of the country’s top prosecutor, who was seen as corrupt or ineffectual by the United States and Western European governments. But there is no evidence he did so to benefit Hunter Biden or the oligarch who owns Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky.

In 2014, Hunter joined the board of Burisma, which was then mired in a corruption scandal. Authorities in Ukraine, Britain and the United States had opened investigations into the company’s operations. Mr. Zlochevsky had also been accused of marshaling government contracts to companies he owned and embezzling public money.

At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some eyebrows in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr. Biden received payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.

A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, a job similar to the attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.

But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin. In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin’s ouster. The next March, Mr. Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.

Mr. Biden took credit for the firing of Mr. Shokin as a foreign policy win during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018, when he boasted about holding up a loan guarantee to Ukraine until Mr. Shokin was removed.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:16pm

notobtuse wrote: »

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

Because you're a paragon of answering questions in this thread.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:21pm

Here's a primary document for you, from 2016

US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation
Hearing on Ukrainian Reforms Two Years After the Maidan Revolution and the Russian Invasion
March 15, 2016
“The Double Challenge to Ukraine: Kremlin Aggression and Reform”
Testimony
by
Ambassador (Ret.) John E. Herbst
Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center
Atlantic Council
@JohnEdHerbst
www.AtlanticCouncil.org

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031516_Herbst_Testimony.pdf

(I highlight Naftogaz because of the Trump Admin's efforts to interfere on its board: https://time.com/5694469/ukraine-gas-trump-impeachment-naftogaz/

But the Oct. 7 report from the AP suggests that a group of American businessmen wanted to interfere in the market and took the Ukraine LNG lobbying push further. The businessmen — Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and Harry Sargeant III — allegedly tried to replace Kobolyev as the CEO of Naftogaz and planned to broker a deal to sell their own natural gas to the company.

The AP reports that Perry advocated to fire and replace the entire membership of Naftogaz’s advisory board. Perry said Monday that the suggestion that he demanded particular people join the board was a “dreamed up story” and said that he “gave recommendations at the request of the Ukrainian government.”

Trump, for his part, has furthered questions about the role natural gas and its chief promoter in the administration has played in the Ukraine saga. Over the weekend, Trump tried to pass the blame for the now infamous phone call in which he asked the president of Ukraine to “do us a favor” of investigating Biden: he suggested that it was Perry who’d told him to make the call.

According to an Axios report, Trump explained Perry’s demand on a phone call for GOP House members. It was, he added, “something about an LNG plant.”)

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 9:22pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Don’t know offhand when it started but as Viktor Shokin was continuing that investigations into corruption surrounding Burisma Holdings who Hunter had a lucrative deal with despite having no expertise in the industry (Shokin claimed it was an appointment made by Zlochevsky "in order to protect himself"), and around June or July of 2015, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves. And Shokin was told Biden had held up US aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

So never.
Period under Investigation was before Biden Joined, not when he worked there.

"But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 9:26pm

Cody montana wrote: »

What do you mean maybe no?
If he was corrupt, he should have been fired.

As I understand it pretty much the whole Ukrainian regime at the time was corrupt. You do know $7 Billion in aid went missing. Now tell me… Who else in the Ukraine regime other than the prosecutor who was looking into corruption of the company Hunter Biden was involved with was given a six hour deadline on firing or Ukraine could kiss the millions in aid goodbye?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:28pm

notobtuse wrote: »

As I understand it pretty much the whole Ukrainian regime at the time was corrupt. You do know $7 Billion in aid went missing. Now tell me… Who else in the Ukraine regime other than the prosecutor who was looking into corruption of the company Hunter Biden was involved with was given a six hour deadline on firing or Ukraine could kiss the millions in aid goodbye?

So $7B in aid went missing and you think it was wrong to not just hand over another $1B in loans from the IMF without them getting assurances that the Procurator was not corrupt?

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 9:29pm

notobtuse wrote: »

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

AND YOU HAVE? :rolleyes:
You literally did not answer my question.

If the goal of the U.S. and the E.U. was to remove the corrupt prosecutor then they succeeded.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 9:31pm

Cody montana wrote: »

So never.
Period under Investigation was before Biden Joined, not when he worked there.

"But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV

There's only one problem with that narrative... it's untrue.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 9:32pm

notobtuse wrote: »

As I understand it pretty much the whole Ukrainian regime at the time was corrupt. You do know $7 Billion in aid went missing. Now tell me… Who else in the Ukraine regime other than the prosecutor who was looking into corruption of the company Hunter Biden was involved with was given a six hour deadline on firing or Ukraine could kiss the millions in aid goodbye?

As you understand?
Also, I think you've answered your own question.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 9:33pm

Cody montana wrote: »

AND YOU HAVE? :rolleyes:
You literally did not answer my question.

If the goal of the U.S. and the E.U. was to remove the corrupt prosecutor then they succeeded.

I did answer the question. You just didn't like my answer.

I'm still waiting for an answer... any answer... to my question.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 9:34pm

Cody montana wrote: »

As you understand?
Also, I think you've answered your own question.

Then you agree what Joe Biden did was corrupt?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 9:35pm

notobtuse wrote: »

There's only one problem with that narrative... it's untrue.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

By John Solomon - opinion contributor (one who has been discredited here before)

Cody montana · 11-11-2019 9:35pm

notobtuse wrote: »

There's only one problem with that narrative... it's untrue.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

I can't view that.

Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

Comments