Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ VikingOracle said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ VikingOracle said:
@ Waterboy said:
Trump lost money while in office, while the Biden's net worth increased exponentially. Who was really grifting?
You hate my multiple sources, hope you are okay with Forbes: "An analysis of documents, some of which only became public in recent weeks, shows just how much Trump’s businesses raked in while he was in office. Dig through everything—including property records, ethics disclosures, debt documents and securities filings—and you’ll find about $2.4 billion of revenue from January 2017 to December 2020." "https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/07/19/trumps-business-hauled-in-24-billion-during-four-years-he-served-as-president/?sh=2de0393b10c0
BTW, I was responding to GreedIron assertion that "[a}s much as Trump used the "lock her up" chant, he didn't go after his political opponent once elected." I guess you agree with me that Trump certainly tried to go after his political opponents once elected and that Greediron made a false statement. See, Waterboy, we can find common ground in dismantling Greediron's statement. Maybe there is hope for this nation yet.
So Trump was allowed to remain rich while in office? Wow. I agree that Trump went after criminals who executed treason at the highest levels. It seems like those of you that hate orange man can't get your arms around the fact that there is a right and wrong factor here about who is really guilty. People arguing that Hillary and Comey aren't corrupt are just fools. Russian Collusion was totally fabricated and the highest levels of our govt were complicit. Instead of worrying if Trump's existing businesses made money, maybe look at what's happening at a broader level in our country and hang your heads in shame for allowing it to knowingly happen.
Waterboy, you are a barrel of laughs today. Let's summarize:
- You wrote: "Trump lost money while in office, while the Biden's net worth increased exponentially. Who was really grifting?"
- I found an article from a publication you respect (Forbes) that did the research and found: Trump companies made "about $2.4 billion of revenue from January 2017 to December 2020."
- You respond to that: "So Trump was allowed to remain rich while in office? Wow."
Sounds like you now agree that Trump's net worth increased exponentially while in office. So, I guess, following your logic, Trump was grifting while in office.
See, we have again found common ground. In an earlier post in this thread we agreed that he used his powers to go after political enemies and now we agree that he was grifting in office. This is great Waterboy!! We are bridging the red-blue gap!!!
No, Trump's net worth went down while he was a president. It doesn't mean he didn't generate a lot of revenue during that time frame. Take America as a whole. It's turning into a shithole even though the government coffers are being filled with our money. I thought I'd put it at a level where maybe you can decipher between revenue and net worth. lol
Your thoughts on this subject do not surprise me. Yes, his net worth went down but Forbes looked at that: "Much of the decline is due to deeper reporting, which revealed, for example, that Trump had been lying about the size of his penthouse.... In further polarizing the country, he has also further polarized his business. That’s led to big losses in key areas. Trump National Doral, the president’s largest golf property, has historically drawn much of its clientele from parts of the country where Trump is unpopular. The resort has seen a steep drop in business since Trump went into politics. The Trump Organization’s traditional wheelhouse of luxury rental residential real estate is suffering too, since much of it sits in blue cities like New York and Chicago. And the president’s brand licensing businesses have basically flatlined. A handful of licensees have struck the Trump name from their properties. Meanwhile companies that paid to put the Trump brand on their products, including Macy’s and Serta, fled during Trump’s campaign. No one has stepped in to fill the void, dropping the value of that business close to zero." https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/08/14/no-trump-is-not-losing-3-to-5-billion-from-presidency/?sh=6ec540e04a2d
So, Trump's wealth has declined because he lied about his wealth to begin with, he alienated the people who would normally spend money at his resorts/hotels, etc and he can no longer license his name because he on goods services.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ VikingOracle said:
Waterboy: we also agree that Greediron was incorrect when he wrote: "[a}s much as Trump used the "lock her up" chant, he didn't go after his political opponent once elected."
He rightfully went after a person that destroyed files to avoid indictment. Once again the matter of right versus wrong matters, though you try to ignore it. There is concrete evidence being ignored against Hillary and Biden, while we have an entirely fabricated (another Hillary and Obama scheme) Russian Collusion stunt. You can't compare something real to something fake and call it even. lol
You know what I find truly amazing Waterboy, here you have Trump as President and he chooses Sessions and Barr as Attorney General, he appoints Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI and they, in turn appoint John Durham as special counsel to investigate the Russia investigation. And, according to you, there is concrete evidence of treason by Hillary and Obama -- and Trump is so inept and such a poor leader (or some a poor judge of character), that despite Trump, the president, he can't convince his hand picked people to actually indicted them. What does that say about Trump -- really, if you believe there is "concrete evidence," you have to admit that Trump was totally incompetent. Really, compare the results of the John Durham investigation against the Mueller investigation. Durham: one guilty plea for one conviction against a low-level FBI lawyer for doctoring one email and two trials that resulted in acquittals. Mueller, in comparison, he indicted 13 Russian nationals and three companies with using fraud and deceit to interfere in the 2016 election, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates both pleaded guilty and/or found guilty of charges brought by Mueller. George Papadopoulos also pleaded guilty to lying. Michael Flynn pleaded guilty in Dec. 1, 2017, to lying to the FBI about his communications with a former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty on Feb. 20, 2018 to one charge of making false statements to the FBI. Richard Pinedo pleaded guilty to identity fraud on Feb. 12, 2018. Michael Cohen pleadeed guilty to falsely stating that he had never agreed to travel to Russia for the real estate deal and that he did not recall any contact with the Russian government about the project. Roger Stone was found guilty of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress, and tampering with a witness.
Really, you have to look at that and admit that Trump was really incompetent as president in the face of having concrete evidence and only convicting one low level FBI. Pretty shocking -- four years with concrete evidence and your hand chosen people and that is all you can accomplish? Damn, Trump was pitiful in terms of law and order. That is pretty much a losing record on your home court; Trump is the definition of ineptitude when it comes to prosecute criminals when you have concrete evidence. And you continue to support that ineptitude.
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ VikingOracle said:
@ Waterboy said:
Trump lost money while in office, while the Biden's net worth increased exponentially. Who was really grifting?
You hate my multiple sources, hope you are okay with Forbes: "An analysis of documents, some of which only became public in recent weeks, shows just how much Trump’s businesses raked in while he was in office. Dig through everything—including property records, ethics disclosures, debt documents and securities filings—and you’ll find about $2.4 billion of revenue from January 2017 to December 2020." "https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/07/19/trumps-business-hauled-in-24-billion-during-four-years-he-served-as-president/?sh=2de0393b10c0
BTW, I was responding to GreedIron assertion that "[a}s much as Trump used the "lock her up" chant, he didn't go after his political opponent once elected." I guess you agree with me that Trump certainly tried to go after his political opponents once elected and that Greediron made a false statement. See, Waterboy, we can find common ground in dismantling Greediron's statement. Maybe there is hope for this nation yet.
So Trump was allowed to remain rich while in office? Wow. I agree that Trump went after criminals who executed treason at the highest levels. It seems like those of you that hate orange man can't get your arms around the fact that there is a right and wrong factor here about who is really guilty. People arguing that Hillary and Comey aren't corrupt are just fools. Russian Collusion was totally fabricated and the highest levels of our govt were complicit. Instead of worrying if Trump's existing businesses made money, maybe look at what's happening at a broader level in our country and hang your heads in shame for allowing it to knowingly happen.
Waterboy, you are a barrel of laughs today. Let's summarize:
- You wrote: "Trump lost money while in office, while the Biden's net worth increased exponentially. Who was really grifting?"
- I found an article from a publication you respect (Forbes) that did the research and found: Trump companies made "about $2.4 billion of revenue from January 2017 to December 2020."
- You respond to that: "So Trump was allowed to remain rich while in office? Wow."
Sounds like you now agree that Trump's net worth increased exponentially while in office. So, I guess, following your logic, Trump was grifting while in office.
See, we have again found common ground. In an earlier post in this thread we agreed that he used his powers to go after political enemies and now we agree that he was grifting in office. This is great Waterboy!! We are bridging the red-blue gap!!!
I gotta go with Waterboy on this one Oracle. You posted that he has about $2 Billion in REVENUES while he was President. There's a big difference in Revenues and Income. The Revenues per year for Trump Corp (which was held in a revocable trust while he was President) were consistent with the years prior to Trump becoming President. His net worth actually DECREASED while he was President.
Some of those items you posted are nonsensical at best like the stupid China granting trademark things. Trademarks only have value if they're on items that have value. There's no inherent value in a trademark outside of the intellectual property it protects. The Trump family was successful and had known brands. The Chinese were embarassed by all the Obama brands they had to go after. Imagine someone opening a Trump hotel and dumpling house using the Trump logo, etc. If I have time, I'd address some of the others which were equally silly. Politifact? Really? Do you know anybody on the Right that ever quotes Politifact? It's a Leftist propaganda outfit offering duck and cover to liberal positions.
A few honest questions for you....
1) They now have identified $22 million in money that flowed to Hunter from the Ukraine and Russia. What exactly do you believe that Hunter did for all that money? His only know qualifications at the time was an affinity for drugs and prostitutes. The Burisma Chairman called him stupid...yet paid him $1M per year to be on the board. Why? I thought you people on the Left were concerned with outside influence particularily from Russia. There's more to come from China btw.
2) Do you believe it was just a coincidence that Burisma asked Hunter for assistance in dealing with a Ukrainian prosecutor going after Burisma...and less than a week later...Joe went and threatened to hold back $1B in aid if the prosecutor wasn't fired.... Just a coincidence?
3) How many offshore accounts and shell companies do you operate? Why the need for all of them with Hunter if not to hide the flow of money?
4) If you believe there's a likelihood that some of this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven...are you outraged that he was offered a plea deal that would exonerate him from all these crimes...for no jail time? Sure sounds like the Hillary laptop thing all over again...offer everybody involved immunity first to keep them from being compelled to testify and than go talk to Hillary...but only after you assured her she's not going to be charged with a crime.
Quote: @badgervike said:
@ VikingOracle said:
3) How many offshore accounts and shell companies do you operate? Why the need for all of them with Hunter if not to hide the flow of money?
4) If you believe there's a likelihood that some of this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven...are you outraged that he was offered a plea deal that would exonerate him from all these crimes...for no jail time? Sure sounds like the Hillary laptop thing all over again...offer everybody involved immunity first to keep them from being compelled to testify and than go talk to Hillary...but only after you assured her she's not going to be charged with a crime.
You are correct that Trump's net worth went down -- I actually underestimated Waterboy's intelligence and tried to slip that by him.
I accept that Hunter used his father's name to make a lot of money. I don't know if it is 22 million. I have seen no evidence that Hunter asked his father to deal with the Ukrainian prosecutor. According to Politico: "No evidence has emerged that Hunter Biden ever pushed his father to seek Shokin’s firing. But Trump’s allies charged that the vice president pushed for Shokin’s firing to protect the company linked to his son." https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/20/hunter-biden-what-to-know-00102700. Republican's key witness, Devon Archer, insisted in testimony to Congress that President Joe Biden was never directly involved in their financial dealings, though Hunter would often put his famous father on speakerphone to impress clients and business associates. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hunter-biden-sold-illusion-of-access-to-his-father-former-business-partner-tells-congress You also need to explain all the different pressures put on the Ukraine to dismiss Shokin" ("But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform." https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html). I also know there are purportedly "tapes" of Joe Biden speaking with Burisma executives -- of you believe that, I have a copy of a pee tape to sell you. As for another Republican [missing] witness, Gal Luft, Republican operative Tim Miller, said: “So the guy who was supposedly gonna blow the whistle on Biden taking payments from foreigners was actually paying off Trump admin officials himself on behalf of China!! Could this be more on the nose?”
But Badger, I agree, continue to investigate this. Republicans are in charge of Congress and they have the right to investigate it. We already know that the Trump administration investigate this.
As for offshore accounts, I actually know quite a bit about them. As a young pup, I was involved in a huge case that involved offshore accounts. I also know of companies that employ offshore accounts for tax avoidance. At a certain level, it is extraordinary common. You have an asset (say music copyrights) that are sold to an offshore company. That company collects the worldwide royalties, etc. at a 0% tax rate and then sends a percentage back to the US company that pays for the artist's living expenses. Yes, it is to hide the flow of money from coming into the US for tax purposes. (Trump has offshore accounts also).
As for Hunter's plea deal, as I have said above, we have checks and balances. In this case, the judge did not approve, so there is a check and balance.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there are corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. I am amazed when voters re-elect such people like the congressman from San Diego and the senator from New Jersey. So, let the investigations continue, let the criminal actions continue -- let's put everything into the light of day. As I said before, there are checks and balances and though not fool proof, we should be proud of our system for working most of the time.
Finally, I do find it amusing that someone you criticize the places I find information (Politifact? Really? Do you know anybody on the Right that ever quotes Politifact?) yet never supply any back-up for their statements. I thought the fact cited was fairly uncontroversal. But here: "That weekend, Sessions traveled with McGahn to Trump’s Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where the president pulled him aside, alone, and suggested he “unrecuse.” But Sessions would not change his mind." https://apnews.com/article/0a0089196a254...6115d30da7
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ badgervike said:
@ VikingOracle said:
3) How many offshore accounts and shell companies do you operate? Why the need for all of them with Hunter if not to hide the flow of money?
4) If you believe there's a likelihood that some of this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven...are you outraged that he was offered a plea deal that would exonerate him from all these crimes...for no jail time? Sure sounds like the Hillary laptop thing all over again...offer everybody involved immunity first to keep them from being compelled to testify and than go talk to Hillary...but only after you assured her she's not going to be charged with a crime.
You are correct that Trump's net worth went down -- I actually underestimated Waterboy's intelligence and tried to slip that by him.
I accept that Hunter used his father's name to make a lot of money. I don't know if it is 22 million. I have seen no evidence that Hunter asked his father to deal with the Ukrainian prosecutor. According to Politico: "No evidence has emerged that Hunter Biden ever pushed his father to seek Shokin’s firing. But Trump’s allies charged that the vice president pushed for Shokin’s firing to protect the company linked to his son." https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/20/hunter-biden-what-to-know-00102700. Republican's key witness, Devon Archer, insisted in testimony to Congress that President Joe Biden was never directly involved in their financial dealings, though Hunter would often put his famous father on speakerphone to impress clients and business associates. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hunter-biden-sold-illusion-of-access-to-his-father-former-business-partner-tells-congress You also need to explain all the different pressures put on the Ukraine to dismiss Shokin" ("But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform." https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html). I also know there are purportedly "tapes" of Joe Biden speaking with Burisma executives -- of you believe that, I have a copy of a pee tape to sell you. As for another Republican [missing] witness, Gal Luft, Republican operative Tim Miller, said: “So the guy who was supposedly gonna blow the whistle on Biden taking payments from foreigners was actually paying off Trump admin officials himself on behalf of China!! Could this be more on the nose?”
But Badger, I agree, continue to investigate this. Republicans are in charge of Congress and they have the right to investigate it. We already know that the Trump administration investigate this.
As for offshore accounts, I actually know quite a bit about them. As a young pup, I was involved in a huge case that involved offshore accounts. I also know of companies that employ offshore accounts for tax avoidance. At a certain level, it is extraordinary common. You have an asset (say music copyrights) that are sold to an offshore company. That company collects the worldwide royalties, etc. at a 0% tax rate and then sends a percentage back to the US company that pays for the artist's living expenses. Yes, it is to hide the flow of money from coming into the US for tax purposes. (Trump has offshore accounts also).
As for Hunter's plea deal, as I have said above, we have checks and balances. In this case, the judge did not approve, so there is a check and balance.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there are corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. I am amazed when voters re-elect such people like the congressman from San Diego and the senator from New Jersey. So, let the investigations continue, let the criminal actions continue -- let's put everything into the light of day. As I said before, there are checks and balances and though not fool proof, we should be proud of our system for working most of the time.
Finally, I do find it amusing that someone you criticize the places I find information (Politifact? Really? Do you know anybody on the Right that ever quotes Politifact?) yet never supply any back-up for their statements. I thought the fact cited was fairly uncontroversal. But here: "That weekend, Sessions traveled with McGahn to Trump’s Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where the president pulled him aside, alone, and suggested he “unrecuse.” But Sessions would not change his mind." https://apnews.com/article/0a0089196a254...6115d30da7
So you admittedly try to deceive with bs and then expect to have credibility. Sounds like good OL Joe and his Afghanistan victory and economic prowess. Anybody with a brain knows the DOJ is playing with a stacked deck right now. Not acknowledging that may fool the sheeple, but we already had an admission from you on your credibility. Of course, it’s more likely you just didn’t know the difference between revenue and net worth to begin with.
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ badgervike said:
@ VikingOracle said:
3) How many offshore accounts and shell companies do you operate? Why the need for all of them with Hunter if not to hide the flow of money?
4) If you believe there's a likelihood that some of this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven...are you outraged that he was offered a plea deal that would exonerate him from all these crimes...for no jail time? Sure sounds like the Hillary laptop thing all over again...offer everybody involved immunity first to keep them from being compelled to testify and than go talk to Hillary...but only after you assured her she's not going to be charged with a crime.
Hey Oracle, thanks for the typical well thought out discussion. See bolded answers below.
I accept that Hunter used his father's name to make a lot of money. I don't know if it is 22 million.
I have seen no evidence that Hunter asked his father to deal with the Ukrainian prosecutor. According to Politico: "No evidence has emerged that Hunter Biden ever pushed his father to seek Shokin’s firing.
Devon Archer testified that Burisma executives pressured him to contact "DC" to take the pressure off of them from the Ukrainian prosecutors.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...veals.html
A few months later....here's Biden bragging about getting the Prosecutor fired by witholding $1B in aide
You're saying it's just a coincidence? Or...it was just going after a corrupt prosecutor that wasn't rooting out corruption? (they're all corrupt in Ukraine btw....) If he wasn't rooting out corruption...than why did Burisma need Hunter to intervene? You're smarter than that Oracle.
As for offshore accounts, I actually know quite a bit about them. As a young pup, I was involved in a huge case that involved offshore accounts. I also know of companies that employ offshore accounts for tax avoidance. At a certain level, it is extraordinary common. You have an asset (say music copyrights) that are sold to an offshore company. That company collects the worldwide royalties, etc. at a 0% tax rate and then sends a percentage back to the US company that pays for the artist's living expenses. Yes, it is to hide the flow of money from coming into the US for tax purposes. (Trump has offshore accounts also).
I own a multinational business. I'm also familiar with offshore accounts. I don't, however, feed money through a series of shell companies...that don't have any purpose but to launder money.
As for Hunter's plea deal, as I have said above, we have checks and balances. In this case, the judge did not approve, so there is a check and balance. And it could have slipped through with complete immunity for Biden....except for a single judge that got in the way. Where were the checks and balances on the Hillary Clinton email scandal by the way? Everybody that could have testified against Hillary was given immunity for nothing in return. How did that system work out? The funny thing is we're talking about the $22M for Hunter from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan....but it's a drop in the bucket for the biggest Presidential grift in US history....the Clinton Global Foundation. You remember...the charitable foundation that only actually used a very small percentage of donations (approx 5%) for charity according to filings. Literally hundreds of millions poured into that foundation.
Finally, I do find it amusing that someone you criticize the places I find information (Politifact? Really? Do you know anybody on the Right that ever quotes Politifact?) yet never supply any back-up for their statements. I thought the fact cited was fairly uncontroversal. But here: "That weekend, Sessions traveled with McGahn to Trump’s Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where the president pulled him aside, alone, and suggested he “unrecuse.” But Sessions would not change his mind." https://apnews.com/article/0a0089196a254284ac854b6115d30da7
The reality is that Sessions never should have recused himself in the first place. For what? He attended a few social events with other Senators? It's even more ridiculous given the "investigation" centered around the political conjecture of the Clinton campaign. There's much worse conflicts of interest in the prosecution of Trump but we're told they can look past their potential conflicts.
Politifact is not a journalistic source. They are a "fact checking" organization with the soul purpose of supporting liberal talking points. They pick and choose facts to support those positions. I had direct interaction with the Politifact Wisconsin editor who worked at the Milwaukee Journal regarding a determination on a local WI political issue during the ACT 10 protests. The legislature passed a law restricting recording devices. One of the Democratic assembly members remarked that "In the WI Assembly Gallery you can now carry a handgun (concealed carry) but you can't carry a pencil. It seemed fairly outrageous to me so I called the (non-emergency) Capitol Police number and asked them. The sergeant that I talked to assured me that you could always carry writing materials in the gallery. He also told me that due to the volatility of of the protests, they were temporarily preventing concealed carry in the Capitol. I called the Politifact guy figuring based on that information, he would retract or change his determination that the Dem's statement was "Mostly True". The Politifact guy acknowledged they had also contacted the Capitol Police and were aware that writing instruments were not covered by the law on recording devices. They had also been in contact with the bill's sponsor and were told that was never the intention of the bill. They based their ruling of mostly true based on the analysis of an activist Democratic lawyer who provided a legal case that a pencil could be construed as a recording device. So...in spite of the fact the Capitol police saying they weren't enforcing a law against writing materials and the bill sponsor stating that wasn't the intent of the bill, they were sticking with their findings. They also stated that the temporary restrictions against guns in the Capitol didn't constitute a change in the law so their findings would stand. He than said something I thought was fairly telling that they're purpose was to provide information as part of the political conversation. Again, quoting Polificact is about the same as posting a letter from the DNC in my mind. Remember when we could use the fact checkers like Snopes to determine the truth? I miss those days.
Badger: If I ever make out your way, we can sit down and talk about Vikings (and offshore accounts). The case i was involved with involved so many offshore accounts and companies that when the original person who funded the offshore accounts and companies passed away, there was a question of who really owned what.
Sorry, you don't like one source I cited for a fact I thought was uncontroversial. You must admit, at least I try to source my material and a lot of my sources include actual quotes from people. I don't simply say that Joe Biden's wealth increased dramatically. I try to give a good source.
As for Hunter Biden, a special counsel has now been appointed. So you should be happy. I think it is the proper thing to do. You talk about a single coincidence but you leave out the context.
- During a September 2015 speech at a financial forum in Odessa, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt decried the inability of Shokin's office to root out corruption.
- In October 2015, then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told the Senate Foreign Relations committee the Prosecutor General's Office must lock up "dirty personnel" in its own office.
- In December 2015, Biden railed against the "cancer of corruption" in a speech before the country's parliament and called out Shokin's office.
- European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
- Besides Biden's threat over the $1 billion in aid, the International Monetary Fund threatened to delay $40 billion in aid for similar reasons.
- Dec. 8, 2015: Biden visited Kiev again and spoke out against bureaucratic corruption that he said was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Biden threatened to withhold loan guarantees unless Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had been widely accused of corruption, was removed.
- March 29, 2016: The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Shokin.
- Activists in Ukraine and former Ukrainian officials dispute that claim. They say that the investigation into the gas company was suspended before the vice president’s ultimatum. According to Vitaliy Kasko, the deputy prosecutor general under Shokin and someone whom civil activists trust, the case had been shelved by prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/explainer-five-things-about-the-ukraine-controversy-you-need-to-know-plus-a-freebie/. See also "For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand." https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html
- May 16, 2019: Bloomberg quotes Ukraine’s current top prosecutor as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father.
See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/ and https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc and https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-whistleblower/timeline-key-dates-in-the-u-s-political-controversy-over-ukraine-idUSL2N26E1AX
As I have tried to respond to a plethora of your questions, I would love to read your view of the following:
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
