Donald Trump, the president of the United States, a man expected to uphold a higher standard, is pushing a false conspiracy theory that Joe Biden traded integrity and attempted to use US government money in order to allow his son to keep a cushy job and stay free from prosecution. The story is bullshit and trump lied to President Zelensky when relaying the details of the case to him.
"I want you [president Zelensky] to do us [me] a favor tho....I heard you had a prosecutor [Shokin] who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair... they shut down your very good prosecutor and you had some very bad people involved... I would like [Rudy Guiliani] to call you...if you could speak to him that would be great...there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you could do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into that it would be great... sounds horrible to me.....I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor."
Joe Biden never bragged about stopping the prosecution, such as Trump is telling Zelensky; Joe Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukrainian government into removing a corrupt prosecutor from office.
Joe Biden never bragged about stopping the prosecution, such as Trump is telling Zelensky; Joe Biden bragged about pressuring the Ukrainian government into removing a corrupt prosecutor from office.
"I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.” Joe Biden at the Council of Foreign Relations, Jan 2018.The corruption of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's office, including that of Viktor Shenko, was well known long before Biden made the statement to Poroshenko. The IMF, the EU, the US, and the Ukrainian people had been pushing for Shokin's removal over a number of months, and this is well-documented in both official documents and world-wide news sources of the time.
Trump's response to Joe's comment was,
"Joe’s got a lot of problems. Joe’s got enough problems without that. But what he said was a terrible thing. And, you know, he really made it a — it was an offer. It was beyond an offer. It was something where he said, “I’m not going to give billions of dollars to Ukraine unless they remove this prosecutor.” And they removed the prosecutor supposedly in one hour. And the prosecutor was prosecuting the company of the son and the son." - September 22, 2019However, despite Biden having made that comment in January 2018, it never became an issue for Trump until after Biden announced his candidacy on April 25, 2019. On May 2, 2019, Rudy Guiliani began investigating the matter for Trump; it was clear that Trump's motives were based on the need to harm a political opponent and he was attempting to involve a foreign country to do it.
Trump has repeatedly pushed the conspiracy theory that Viktor Shokin was an innocent man who was forced out of his office by Joe Biden to protect the company Hunter Biden worked for from prosecution and thus, Biden's son. The scenario Trump is pushing is wrought with the "alternative facts" not based in truth that Trump wants the country to believe.
A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR
The story dates back to the state of the Ukraine in November 2013. The then president, Yanukovych, decided to form closer ties with the corrupt government of Russia and move further away from the European Union. His decision resulted in mass protests known as Euromaiden; For over two months mass protests dominated the region with people demonstrating against wide spread government corruption, abuses of power, and human rights violations under Yanukovych. Increasing acts of violence, fighting, and deaths lead to an overturn of the government and the protests ended in February 2014; Yanukovych and his top officials fled the nation and the area was left in geopolitical uncertainty.
In April, 2014, the International Monetary Fund took a big gamble and decided to help the Ukraine. Wide-spread corruption was still evident despite the overturn in the government and it resulted in lingering civil unrest. However, the country was facing economic difficulties and political instability and in great need of assistance. The IMF approved a 17-billion dollar two year bail-out package for the Ukraine. But, the agreement came at a cost. In exchange for the aide, the Ukraine had to improve the economy by reducing its dependency on Russia for natural gas. It was also required to focus on reform and eliminate the wide-spread corruption dominating the political system, including the General Prosecutor's office. A stipulation of the package was the the Ukraine set up a new Anti-Corruption Bureau. Soon after, the National Anti-corruption Bureau of the Ukraine (NABU) was created.
Despite the creation of NABU, the Ukraine had displayed poor efforts at both tackling the corruption and making the needed economic changes. Part of the problem was the continued presence of Viktor Shokin in the General Prosecutor's office and this caused Ukrainian protests, calling for his removal both in October 2015 and in March 2016, just prior to his removal from office.
The March 2016th protest was in response to a Shokin 'revenge case' against a citizen-created anti-corruption watchdog group, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AAC). Daria Kaleniuk, a Ukrainian attorney, along with other Ukrainians who were "fed-up" with the ongoing corruption in the Ukrainian government decided something had to be done and created the AAC. The group was hyper-critical of Shokin and he decided to "lash back three times as hard" at the group by starting an investigation and claiming it embezzled over 2.2 million dollars in aide.
According to Trump, Biden used the US's power to block investigations into Mykola Zlochevksy. However, details of the 2014-15 UK SFO case on illicit enrichment and money laundering shared by the AAC show that the US used its influence to encourage the Ukraine to participate in prosecuting MZ. Per the AAC, the GPO had repeatedly been delaying the UK's case by refusing to name Zlochevsky as a suspect. The GPO supplied a letter to MZ's attorney on December 2, 2014 that confirmed they had not named MZ as a suspect in a criminal case. On Dec 25th, 2014, the US warned the Ukraine of negative consequences for the continued lack of cooperation with the UK. On December 30th, 2014, the GPO finally provided the UK with the needed documentation that identified Mykola Zlochevsky as a suspect in a crime for illicit enrichment and money laundering. However, despite naming him as a suspect, the Ukrainians did not report the matter to the courts. Over the next two years, the case evolved from that of illicit enrichment and money laundering to one of personal tax evasion which found MZ not guilty of charges.
Shokin was part of the process that had derailed the serious criminal investigations against MZ. And it was acts of corruption such as that which was responsible for Biden's push for his removal.
“Shokin was fired because he attacked the reformers within the prosecutor general’s office, reformers who tried to investigate corrupt prosecutors.” - Daria Kaleniuk, the founder of the AAC,
The AAC had challenged Shokin and publicly criticized him; in return he launched a false criminal investigation against them to retaliate. It was not his only act of revenge. David Sakvirlidze, a one-time deputy prosecutor under Shokin, was one of those reformers who felt the attack described by Daria.
Sakvirlidze was Shoin's deputy prosecutor for a relatively short time, lasting from February 16, 2016 following Vitaly Kasko's resignation up until mid to late March 2016 when Viktor Shokin fired him. Prior to joining the Ukraine GPO, Sakvirlidze had been the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine andhe had a reputation of having "zero-tolerance" on crime. He brought those same values to the Ukraine GPO where they far from appreciated. Sakvirilidze accused officials in the GPO of taking bribes and being corrupt. Skokin responded by not only firing him, but falsely charging him with a crime; A crime that changed in details per Sakvirilidze's attorney.
Sakvirlidze was Shoin's deputy prosecutor for a relatively short time, lasting from February 16, 2016 following Vitaly Kasko's resignation up until mid to late March 2016 when Viktor Shokin fired him. Prior to joining the Ukraine GPO, Sakvirlidze had been the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine andhe had a reputation of having "zero-tolerance" on crime. He brought those same values to the Ukraine GPO where they far from appreciated. Sakvirilidze accused officials in the GPO of taking bribes and being corrupt. Skokin responded by not only firing him, but falsely charging him with a crime; A crime that changed in details per Sakvirilidze's attorney.
"First, Sakvarelidze is charged with plotting with other persons to paralyze the work of the Shehyni checkpoint on September 10, 2017, although the checkpoint was already not working when the bus carrying Saakashvili came to the Ukrainian border
He was charged with harming and resisting a State Border Guard official
Initially accused of illegally moving some Ukrainian and foreign journalists over the Ukrainian border. However, the charges evolved.
"However, these accusations disappeared from the case materials during the trial, and he is now charged with moving Saakashvili over the Polish and Ukrainian border. But it does not say how precisely he did so, if he carried them in the trunk of a car, threw them over the border, or carried them over the border" -- Valeria Kolomiyets, attny.
The prosecutor's office under Shokin also filed false charges against another of his past deputy prosecutor's who spoke out against him. Prior to his resignation, Vitaly Kasko worked hard to try to enact reform in the GPO's office. However, with Viktor leading it, he felt it impossible and very publicly announced it.
The last straw was yet another redistribution of authority within the prosecutor general office of Ukraine. Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin has taken away all the functions and tools to investigate and control proceedings initiated by our team, including jn the case of the so-called reform prosecutors. Helping to create a real European style prosecutors office under the current prosecutor general is impossible, so I see no sense to stay in my position..........Today, the General Prosecutor's office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine
The month following his resignation, and shortly before Shokin was removed from office, Kasko was charged by the GPO with a fraud case which later lead to his apartment being seized by Ukrainian authorities. The claim was that Kasko received two apartments while in his employ in the GPO. Prosecutors filed for his arrest but Ukrainian courts rejected the bid. Kasko was supported by the people of the Ukraine and critics labeled the charges an act of revenge. The case was closed in January 2017 due to insufficient evidence to support the charges.
Shokin was removed from office on March 16th, 2016 due to his corruption that included not pursuing the investigation of serious criminal charges against political allies and people of influence such as Mykola Zlochevsky. The evidence of Shokin's corruption was widely known throughout the west and can be noted in world-wide reports. Even the people of the Ukraine wanted Shokin out. And, not only had the US put pressure on the Ukraine to pull Shokin from office, so did the IMF and the EU. Both entities had invested money in the Ukraine to bring on reform. The IMF and EU's demands to remove Shokin are directly referred to in a March 16th, 2016 hearing before the United States Committee on Foreign Relations.
"Economic Minister Abramavicious resigned complaining he could not do his job because of corruption, and that corruption went all the way to the top. Reformers in civil society spoke up for him, and so did the US, the EU, and the IMF. In response, President Poroshenko called for the removal of Shokin......." "By the late fall of 2015, the US and the UK joined the chorus of those seeking Viktor Shokin's removal as part of an overall reform of the Prosecutor's General office. US Vice President Joe Biden spoke about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv, but Shokin remained in place."
John Herbst, GW Bush US Ambassador to Ukraine
John Herbst, GW Bush US Ambassador to Ukraine
Despite Trump describing Shokin as a "very good" prosecutor and a "very fair" one, a multitude of evidence says otherwise. The question people need to be asking is if Trump considers Viktor Shokin a "very good" and "very fair" prosecutor, how good really is his judgement?
Viktor Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor who needed to be removed.
"THE CASE WAS NOT PURSUED"
Whereas the GPO was quick to initiate and name both Sakvarelidze and Kasko as suspects in non-existent crimes, it moved slowly, if at all, when it came to political allies and influential people such as Mykola Zlovchesky, the owner of Burisma Holdings. According to Kasko, the GPO shelved the Zlovchesky investigation for all of 2014 and 2015.
"There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015." Kasko, Bloomberg interview
Kasko's statement is backed by both the AAC March 2019 report and UK court documents. In March, 2014, The UK Special Fraud Office (SFO) launched an investigation against Mykola Zylovchesky and froze his bank accounts According to the final court document regarding the frozen accounts, Ukranian prosecutors failed to investigate the case and refused to even name MZ as a suspect until the end of 2014 which resulted in the release of MZ's bank accounts. As indicated earlier, despite naming MZ a suspect after the US pressured them to do so, the GPO failed to follow through with pursuing the criminal charges. Instead, they reduced the case to personal tax evasion which removed Burisma Holdings from the investigation.
The UK's case revolved around MZ's activities while in office. The SFO alleged MZ used his position to illegally grant gas licenses to his companies and laundered money to hide it.
(MZ being a Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources and being the beneficial owner of a non resident company that owned the subsidiary companies) illegally ensured the issuance of mineral resource use permits to the companies’. - SFO
MZ started Burisma Holdings in 2002, just prior to his his time in office, and grew it to include Ukrainian gas and oil producers in Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company. In 2003 he was appointed Ukraine's Chairman for the State Committee of Natural Resources. The position, lasting until 2005, allowed him to issue gas licenses to explore for oil and he issued licenses to two of his companies in Pari and Esko-Pivnich. The next several years he spent out of office but kept close political ties to those in power. From 2010 - 2012 he held various government offices, all of which gave him the power to issue gas licenses to those of his choice, including himself.
4
The SFO noticed that MZ had started to remove large sums from the 35 million dollars he had stored in his London bank accounts to they petitioned the UK courts to grant a "without notice" order to freeze the accounts. The order was granted, however, it required cooperation from the Urkranian GPO to maintain it. The GPO was contacted in July of 2014 and informed the UK SFO that it had opened an investigation into MZ in August 2014 but did not pursue investigation into the charges. Instead, a letter was sent to MZ's attorney that a case was opened but MZ was not named a suspect of a crime.
71. Investigation 805 was referred to in a letter from the Prosecutor General’s office (undated but in response to an inquiry of 14 November 2014). It was there stated that an investigation had been registered on 5 August 2014 into an allegation of unlawful enrichment as a result of receiving a large bribe and money laundering based on the information provided from the competent authorities in the United Kingdom in the course of their money laundering investigation started on 22 March 2014 - UK Court Doc
Mr Boiko gives evidence both of the procedural requirements of Ukrainian criminal law and the fact that although the present authorities in Ukraine have been anxious to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing by the defendant, and a number of different investigations connected with him have been opened, he has never been named as a suspect in any criminal investigationThe GPO had months to investigate and name MZ a suspect, but did not. On Dec 2, the day before a hearing on the matter, the GPO notified the SFO and MZ's attorney that he was never named a suspect in any of the five criminal complaints against him within the GOP's office, launched between 12/2012 and 8/2014. According to the GPO, there was not any grounds for criminal prosecution.
14. The Ukrainian authorities had written on a number of occasions to the applicant giving information about inquiries that had been opened but had not progressed to the point where evidence of wrongdoing had been discovered such as to require the prosecutor to inform MZ that he was a suspect. Shortly before the hearing of this application a letter dated 2 December 2014 was received from the General Prosecutor of Ukraine stating that in respect of five separately identified investigations opened between 19 December 2012 and 6 August 2014 ( including 155 and another investigation 181) ‘allegation notification was not delivered to MZ due to absence of grounds for criminal prosecution.’
The UK SFO had repeatedly pressed the GPO to cooperate, but they deferred and delayed. Then, 27 days after telling the UK court MZ was not named a suspect, they suddenly changed their mind which Judge Blake took into consideration but implied he could not speculate that it was related to new evidence being discovered.
It is not known why the authorities subsequently changed their minds 27 days later, or whether fresh evidence has arisen.....
The GPO's decision came after the United States put pressure on the Ukraine to cooperate with the UK's investigation.
On Dec 25, 2014, the GPO received letter [11] from the respective US authorities regarding the risk of the January court decision to unblock the funds due to slow-pace investigation of Zlochevsky’s case, that would also question the EU, Lichtenstein and Switzerland sanctions against Yanukovych and his associates.
- Anti-corruption Action Center
The failure of the Ukrainian GPO office to investigate MZ, owner of Burisma Holdings, the company Hunter Biden was presently working at, resulted in the UK loosing their battle to maintain a freeze over MZ's assets. The Judge's decision was partially based upon the acts of the GPO despite taking into consideration testimony about the possibility of intentional derailment. It was not enough to change his mind and bank accounts totally 23 million dollars were unfrozen; MZ soon after moved the money to Cyprus.
Professor Sakwa gives some background evidence about the susceptibility of the prosecution authorities in Ukraine to political pressure as regimes change. Given the state of the evidence that no investigations of criminal conduct against the defendant in Ukraine have resulted in his being named as a suspect some ten months after the change of regime, this evidence is only of very limited assistance. - Justice Blake
The slow-walking of the case per the GPO elicited a strong response from Geoffrey Pyatt, the American Ambassador to Ukraine.
For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead, they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus. The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.” Geoffery Pyatt, US Amb. to Ukraine, Feb 24, 2015
The evidence supports that due to the corruption that was controlling the prosecutor's office, the cases against Zlovechesky were not pursued.
HUNTER BIDEN'S JOB
The "Biden Fired" allegation often turns into a "Biden Hire" allegation after the former has been thoroughly debunked. The claim is that Joe Biden used his position to get Hunter on the board of Burisma Holdings. However, it was not unusual for large corporations to seek out influential names and add them to the boards of their company. And, the current evidence supports that is what happened when it comes to the Hunter Biden hire.In March 2014, the UK just opened a case involving corruption against Mykola Zlovchevsky, ownder of Burisma Holdings, for actions which allegedly occurred during his past time spent in office. At the same time, corruption reform was a big topic in the Ukraine and Joe Biden was pushing a strong anti-corruption message. The "Biden" name on the board of directors provided great optics that the company was moving along a path of corruption reform.
Biden press release:
I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.Hunter Biden was not the only DC-connected person that Burisma Holdings hired at the time. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to the then Secretary of State, John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign was also added to the board of director's for Burisma Holdings. Archer was the ex-college roommate of John Kerry's stepson Christopher Heinz and the managing partner in a Rosemont Capital, a company owned by Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz, and Devon Archer.
After Biden's hire in the company, an ethics watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, found no fault in it because Hunter was a private citizen. As did Richard Painter, Geroge W. Bush's one-time chief ethics officer.
"It can’t be that because your dad is the vice president, you can’t do anything." -Melanie Sloan, CREW.
" It’s very clear the statute does not cover this, even if the statute applied to the vice president." -- Richard Painter
The evidence available supports that it was Burisma Holdings seeking out Hunter Biden for the position. There is a lack of evidence to support that Joe Biden entered in a quid-pro-quo to either get his son the position with Burisma Holdings or to protect his son from prosecution of the company.
