More Shokin

[Tranquillus in Exile]

In February 2014, two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma, UK authorities requested information from Ukraine in a probe against Mykola Zlochevsky, founder of Burisma, for money laundering. The case was assigned to Viktor Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. Shokin appears to have ignored the request.

In December 2014, the US warned Ukrainian prosecutors of “negative consequences” over their failure to assist the UK in the Zlochevsky probe. Shokin did nothing.

In September 2015, by which time Shokin was prosecutor general of Ukraine, the US ambassador accused Shokin’s officials of subverting the UK investigation. Shokin still did nothing.

Some light on these non-events is provided by Vitaliy Kasko, deputy prosecutor in charge of international cooperation. According to Kasko, “[the case] was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.” Kasko urged action. Shokin did nothing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...iuliani-s-biden-claim?leadSource=uverify wall


“I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair” - Trump to Zelensky, 2020.

Was Shokin forced out because he was on the verge of implicating the Bidens in an international scandal - all achieved by doing nothing?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Wrong.

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based irm, Rosemont
Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts —
usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014
through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main
U.S. oicial dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with
me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identiied Hunter
Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca,
as potential recipients of money.

Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as
general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that
“included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all
members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD067.pdf

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Wrong.

No one denies - I certainly don’t - that Hunter Biden was paid by Burisma. He was on the board, ffs.

I don’t say that was a good thing, but that isn’t the point, What you need to show is that he was paid for something criminal, or at the very least he failed to declare the payments. Go ahead ...


As for Shokin “having plans” to investigate Burisma before he was fired, this is what the US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, said in September 2015:

“Rather than supporting Ukraine’s reforms and working to root out corruption, actors within the Prosecutor-General’s Office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ambassador-upbraids-ukraine-over-corruption-efforts/27271294.html

Shokin had been Prosecutor General for most of that year. Couldn’t he control those “actors”? Why didn’t he stop them if he really wanted reform?


Finally, there’s the point in the OP. Shokin never collaborated with the UK authorities who were investigating Burisma’s boss for money laundering. Their request was first made in February 2014, and it’s doubtful if Shokin ever responded (I don’t know that for sure). Strange behavior, wouldn’t you say, for someone who was determined to investigate Burisma?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay, then why did the US and UK accept Shokin's replacement who did nothing to investigate Burisma? This doesn't make sense. So, what was the motivation behind getting rid of Shokin and allowing a complete incompetent to replace him who did worse?

 

[Nordberg]

Okay, then why did the US and UK accept Shokin's replacement who did nothing to investigate Burisma? This doesn't make sense. So, what was the motivation behind getting rid of Shokin and allowing a complete incompetent to replace him who did worse?

Why are we supposed to direct the prosecutors in Ukraine? We got rid of a well-known corrupt prosecutor who would have got his hands on the loan guarantees America and the EU were making. They wanted him out and Biden was the one who spoke to it. It ends there. It was not about investigating Burisma. It was being investigated for environmental infractions. That was done before Hunter was hired. Hunter was hired by the board to change the direction of the company to the West away from Russia. It would be difficult to find a better candidate to demonstrate that change of direction.

 

[Althea]

No one denies - I certainly don’t - that Hunter Biden was paid by Burisma. He was on the board, ffs.

I don’t say that was a good thing, but that isn’t the point, What you need to show is that he was paid for something criminal, or at the very least he failed to declare the payments. Go ahead ...


As for Shokin “having plans” to investigate Burisma before he was fired, this is what the US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, said in September 2015:

“Rather than supporting Ukraine’s reforms and working to root out corruption, actors within the Prosecutor-General’s Office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ambassador-upbraids-ukraine-over-corruption-efforts/27271294.html

Shokin had been Prosecutor General for most of that year. Couldn’t he control those “actors”? Why didn’t he stop them if he really wanted reform?


Finally, there’s the point in the OP. Shokin never collaborated with the UK authorities who were investigating Burisma’s boss for money laundering. Their request was first made in February 2014, and it’s doubtful if Shokin ever responded (I don’t know that for sure). Strange behavior, wouldn’t you say, for someone who was determined to investigate Burisma?

Shokin was no doubt getting kickbacks from Zlochevskiy for burying the investigation.

Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why are we supposed to direct the prosecutors in Ukraine? We got rid of a well-known corrupt prosecutor who would have got his hands on the loan guarantees America and the EU were making. They wanted him out and Biden was the one who spoke to it. It ends there. It was not about investigating Burisma. It was being investigated for environmental infractions. That was done before Hunter was hired. Hunter was hired by the board to change the direction of the company to the West away from Russia. It would be difficult to find a better candidate to demonstrate that change of direction.

If that's true, then why get rid of Shokin? You seem to want it both ways. We can force Ukraine to get rid of their chief prosecutor when we want to because we think he's corrupt, and ignore their chief prosecutor when we want to even if he's corrupt because we shouldn't be mucking in their internal politics. So, which is it?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Why are we supposed to direct the prosecutors in Ukraine? We got rid of a well-known corrupt prosecutor who would have got his hands on the loan guarantees America and the EU were making. They wanted him out and Biden was the one who spoke to it. It ends there. It was not about investigating Burisma. It was being investigated for environmental infractions. That was done before Hunter was hired. Hunter was hired by the board to change the direction of the company to the West away from Russia. It would be difficult to find a better candidate to demonstrate that change of direction.

Putin's disinformation agents have done an excellent job of convincing at least Fox swallowers and the Cult that the Bidens were up to no good, rather than the real scenario, as you described so well.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Putin's disinformation agents have done an excellent job of convincing at least Fox swallowers and the Cult that the Bidens were up to no good, rather than the real scenario, as you described so well.

Do you believe that Bagman (Hunter) was an honest "businessman?" Do you think the Biden family members who got huge payouts from Bagman's shell corporations but who didn't work for them and did nothing you can point to to deserve payment were doing legitimate business of some sort? Do you?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No one denies - I certainly don’t - that Hunter Biden was paid by Burisma. He was on the board, ffs.

I don’t say that was a good thing, but that isn’t the point, What you need to show is that he was paid for something criminal, or at the very least he failed to declare the payments. Go ahead ...


As for Shokin “having plans” to investigate Burisma before he was fired, this is what the US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, said in September 2015:

“Rather than supporting Ukraine’s reforms and working to root out corruption, actors within the Prosecutor-General’s Office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ambassador-upbraids-ukraine-over-corruption-efforts/27271294.html

Shokin had been Prosecutor General for most of that year. Couldn’t he control those “actors”? Why didn’t he stop them if he really wanted reform?


Finally, there’s the point in the OP. Shokin never collaborated with the UK authorities who were investigating Burisma’s boss for money laundering. Their request was first made in February 2014, and it’s doubtful if Shokin ever responded (I don’t know that for sure). Strange behavior, wouldn’t you say, for someone who was determined to investigate Burisma?

Ukraine's government is beyond corrupt, can you imagine how hard it is to get an investigation up and running effectively under those circumstances?

Ukraine was and is run by what we would call the mafia here and they made this investigation go away by bribing Biden to do so.

They used Hunter to do so.

Can you tell us why they would hire Hunter who has absolutely no experience in energy production to sit on their board of directors?

They just randomly picked a guy from the US to take up that spot?

C'mon man, use some common sense here.

The only reason they hired him was to "legally" funnel money to him to get his father to end the investigation into the crimes they were involved in.

 

[Nordberg]

If that's true, then why get rid of Shokin? You seem to want it both ways. We can force Ukraine to get rid of their chief prosecutor when we want to because we think he's corrupt, and ignore their chief prosecutor when we want to even if he's corrupt because we shouldn't be mucking in their internal politics. So, which is it?

Read again. The Americans and EU wanted him out because he would have stolen the money they were providing. Can you understand why they thought it was a good idea to get him out? We did not want him involved in our deals.