Trump Amb. to EU Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Who is trying to stop an investigation?

I have not argued against that so it's odd that you are directing that at me. Isn't this as yet unspecified investigation the basis for Trump's request to Ukraine?

It's is unclear what or who you are arguing against.

The entire case for impeachment from the dems is trying to stop the investigation into biden.

Thats what I am arguing against.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You know as well as I do that an ethics violation is not criminal. Anything "could be" criminal if a crime was committed ... Still zero proof of that though ....

In this case it would be a public corruption/ethics law violation, paying a nation to drop the prosecutor investigating the company your son is financially tied to, so yeah... little more here than a simple ethics violation and waltz away from it you'd prefer it was classified as.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not an unreasonable supposition I guess.

Except for the combined efforts to similar ends of the EU, IMF etc.

Were they all out to help Hunter?

Those groups did not have to be out to help hunter.

Lets for the sake of argument assume the IMF, the EU, and everyone else who claimed shokin was corrupt were right.

Even in that case, this doesnt prove Obama and biden didnt want him fired for personal reasons, which needs to be investigated.

Even in that contorted logic..Rudy's narrative has failed to produce any motivation for Pres. Obama or VP Biden to have a personal reason to have Shokin fired.

WHAT legal risk was Biden Jr. in?

a reply to: Gryphon66

There was no quid pro quo between Trump and the president of Ukraine. The president of Ukraine agrees there was no pressure or threat.

However, there was quid pro quo between Obama/Biden and Ukraine, and yes it was illegal.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 USC 78dd-1):
It is illegal for a U.S. person to coerce or influence, through birbery or extortion, a foreign nation into taking action that might financially benefit that person, his family, or business.

Birbery (18 USC 201(b)):
Whoever corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to a public official to influence an official act is guilty of bribery.

Gratuities (18 USC 201(c)):
Giving, offering or promising a nything of value to a public official in exchange for any official act is a violation of the gratuities statute.

Hobbs Act Extortion (18 USC 1951):
A threat to a foreign official in order to obtain an official benefit affecting interstate or foreign commerce would constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not an unreasonable supposition I guess.

Except for the combined efforts to similar ends of the EU, IMF etc.

Were they all out to help Hunter?

Those groups did not have to be out to help hunter.

Lets for the sake of argument assume the IMF, the EU, and everyone else who claimed shokin was corrupt were right.

Even in that case, this doesnt prove Obama and biden didnt want him fired for personal reasons, which needs to be investigated.

Even in that contorted logic..Rudy's narrative has failed to produce any motivation for Pres. Obama or VP Biden to have a personal reason to have Shokin fired.

WHAT legal risk was Biden Jr. in?

Would it have looked bad for the "scandal free administration" to have the vp's son being employed by a man they called corrupt, getting huge sums of money he was unqualified to get, and having the company he was on the board of directors for being investigated leading into the 2016 election?

Even if hunter committed no crime, did he stand to lose huge amounts of money if Zlochevsky went to jail, or birosma shut down? Is it possible a father may want that to not occur?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It wasn't just loan guarantees. It was:

1 billion sovereign loan guarantee
320 million in general assistance
118 million in equipment and training for their security forces
20 million for law enforcement reform
+ advisers in banking, politics, energy, media and human rights

Here is a sworn court statement from Shokin:
www.scribd.com...

The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings ("Burisma"), a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. I assume Burisma, which was connected with the gas extraction, had the support of the US Vice President Joe Biden because his son was on the Board of Directors.

Shokin said Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president at the time, came to him multiple times and asked him to close down the probe into Burisma but the prosecutor refused.

In my conversations with Poroshenko at the time, he was emphatic that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma. When I did not, he said that the U.S. (via Biden) were refusing to release the USD$ 1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Who is trying to stop an investigation?

I have not argued against that so it's odd that you are directing that at me. Isn't this as yet unspecified investigation the basis for Trump's request to Ukraine?

It's is unclear what or who you are arguing against.

The entire case for impeachment from the dems is trying to stop the investigation into biden.

Thats what I am arguing against.

Your assertion is that an action in the House is meant to stop an investigation in the DOJ?

Is there an investigation into alleged wrongdoing by Hunter Biden in the DOJ?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

The response to that will be "Shokin is a corrupt liar"

The response to John solomon reporting even burismas lawyers told sevruk, the interim prosecutor they knew shokin wasnt corrupt and US officials spread disinfo about him is "John Solomon is a corrupt liar"

Only soros and obama connected people can be trusted to these people.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I’ll be glad to look at the evidence for your claim. At this moment, all we have discussed to date are loan guarantees which are not cash payments.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Congress approved the loan guarantees. The loan guarantees were ALWAYS predicated on movements by the Ukraine to eliminate rank government corruption of which Shokin was only a small part.

And again, where is the ethics violation you’re referring to? Hunter or Joe Biden? Are you alluding to Warren’s side-swipe or something else?

NM

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Shokin’s sworn statement says that he was investigating Burisma. As I understand it the investigation when it happened regarding dealings during 2010-2012. Do you have other information?

He also says that Hunter Biden as associated with Burisma. And we know that is true.

What Shokin does not swear to is that he was investigating Hunter Biden, which is what many here keep trying to claim.

Then Shokin talks about his assumptions, which are ... assumptions.

It’s funny how memory works isn’t it?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Also ... there was some discussion earlier that Mr. Solomon may have fabricated these documents?

Has there been any sort of secondary validation of their veracity?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny, nothing I'm reading from 2014, when Congress approved the loan backing and other aid packages, mentions fighting corruption whatsoever. That would seem to be a lie from the Obama White House produced in an effort to deflect criticism of the clear ethic violations surrounding the handcuffing of a billion dollars to the Ukraine dropping an investigation into the company the Vice President's son sat on the board for.
www.pbs.org...

It was a violation of ethics for Joe Biden to be in any way involved in negotiations, discussions, or otherwise about the future of the prosecutor investigating the company Biden's son was on the board for. Every American corporation is required to self identify potential conflicts of interest that are well below the degree of a VP leveraging a billion dollars over a foreign nation pending their decisions that will directly benefit or impact that VP's son.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Yep, a lot of people hold that opinion about no quid pro quo. To me, it’s irrelevant for the most part except to demonstrate how far the Executive has expanded beyond Constitutional limits.

You paraphrased the citations from US Code.

Another issue is that Biden and Obama dumped money into Praivatbank, and then before you know it, 1.8 BILLION accidentally goes missing.

Shokin had launched an investigation into the "Anticorruption Action Centre" because they may have diverted or embezzled millions of dollars of that money.

However, the two top financiers of that year in Ukraine were the U.S. Government and The International Renaissance Foundation (whom George Soros is the main donor).

After Shokin is fired, in March 2016, another 2.2 MILLION and another 1.8 BILLION from IMF loan are suddenly lost...

Good thing Obama and Biden made sure to set up the "National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine" before all of this.

Here is another sworn statement from Shokin:

the reason was because it was precisely the state officials from the US administration of President Obama - and Joe Biden in particular - who were telling the heads of the Ukraine law-enforcement system how to investigate and whom to investigate, including members of the Yanukovych regime team. I was not complying with their will (in respect of Zlochevsky, in particular, who was a minister under Yanukovych) so I had to be removed from office.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Who is trying to stop an investigation?

I have not argued against that so it's odd that you are directing that at me. Isn't this as yet unspecified investigation the basis for Trump's request to Ukraine?

It's is unclear what or who you are arguing against.

The entire case for impeachment from the dems is trying to stop the investigation into biden.

Thats what I am arguing against.

Your assertion is that an action in the House is meant to stop an investigation in the DOJ?

Is there an investigation into alleged wrongdoing by Hunter Biden in the DOJ?

The dems are saying the executive branch, of which the doj is part of, may not seek evidence from a foreign government about crimes of someone who is a political opponent or it is criminal.

Yes, that is designed to stop a doj investigation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Congress approved the loan guarantees. The loan guarantees were ALWAYS predicated on movements by the Ukraine to eliminate rank government corruption of which Shokin was only a small part.

And again, where is the ethics violation you’re referring to? Hunter or Joe Biden? Are you alluding to Warren’s side-swipe or something else?

Then why did Obama give the loans after only the firing of Shokin, when the next prosecutors also left the corrupt (according to obama) zlochevsky off the hook?

Why wasnt Obama and biden et al furious over the fact they gave a billion dollars in laon guarntees that was contigent on ending corruptio, and that corruption didnt end?

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
Another issue is that Biden and Obama dumped money into Praivatbank, and then before you know it, 1.8 BILLION accidentally goes missing.

Perhaps Congress approved it to "fight corruption?"