FBI Document Shows Joe Biden Took $5M From Burisma As part of a Bribery Scheme

Didn't miss it. It's simply not true. Shokin was protecting Zlochevsky for 2 years, not pursuing charges. The claim that Shokin was actively investigating Burima, comes from Shokin.

Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor general who had worked under Shokin and resigned in frustration at his stymying of corruption investigations, told Bloomberg News (in a May 2019 interview) that the office’s probe into Burisma Holdings had been long dormant by the time Joe Biden issued his ultimatum in 2016. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against” Burisma owner Zlochevskiy, Bloomberg quoted Kasko as saying. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” Kasko said.
“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate, told the Washington Post. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”

And the NY Times article referenced in your thehill article doesn't say Shokin was actively investigating Burisma. To the contrary, the only investigation ot mentions was the UK investigation into Zlochevsky which the UK had to drop because Ukraine's Prosecutor General's office was protecting Zlochevsky. And it was Shokin who was assigned to help the UK's investigation.

But after Ukrainian prosecutors refused to provide documents needed in the investigation, a British court in January ordered the Serious Fraud Office to unfreeze the assets. The refusal by the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to cooperate was the target of a stinging attack by the American ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who called out Burisma’s owner by name in a speech in September.
“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,” Mr. Pyatt said. Officials at the prosecutor general’s office, he added, were asked by the United Kingdom “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.”
I have posted this link multiple times.
I have it bookmarked.

But RWI's are believing the FAKE story made up by 4 people.
Those 4 are Rudy, trump, John Soloman and Shokin.
Imagine that.
 
How many times need I repeat this until it sinks in? The whistleblower's claims are unverified.
How can you be so sure?

FBI sat on the 1023 for three years......you can say for certain they didn't follow up on the info, from one of their most trusted and reliable CHS's?
 
How can you be so sure?

FBI sat on the 1023 for three years......you can say for certain they didn't follow up on the info, from one of their most trusted and reliable CHS's?

No, read what I said. Again. All we now for now with any amount of certainty is that it's unverified. We don't know if there's anything other than that one FD-1023 form. Anything said other than that is speculation.
 
That might be a good enough reason to vote for him.

Has trump made the same promise?
Oh yeah... he did it first... so which ever one comes out on top we can be semi assured our country will be returned to a land of Justice.... for all....
 
Track Biden's net worth from his first term with Obama till now. He should be investigated and charged, only cartel members grow their net worth that fast
Actually, Biden released many financial reports and taxes.. He has nothing to hide. Howhe made his money is public.

you're none to bright

quotes;

"The story of how Biden became a wealthy man in the wake of his vice presidency, leveraging his fame to sell books and deliver speeches, has been told many times. But a closer look at the math prompts a question that hasn’t been asked: Why isn’t Biden even richer?"

 
From one of the FBI's most trusted and accurate informants with a long term impeccable record.
again with the bullshit lying through omission?

sigh

"There's a confidential human source that the FBI works with who has proven to be very credible, who reported a conversation with someone else. That confidential human source said that he had no way of knowing about the underlying veracity of the things he was being told.

It's not the source's information, it is the information that he reported from a conversation with someone else that he was not able to verify or authenticate.

That's why we're talking about second-hand hearsay here.

And so it is not the confidential human source who is the origin of the particular claim.

That source is the person who reported that someone else was saying this. And that is why this task force was created that examined it, and they determined there was no reason to move up the chain of investigative procedures."



 
You miss the boat, once again. It was Comer and Grassley, through the WB contacts that verified his track record.
The WB came to Comer and/or Grassley.
Comer and Grassley know the WB's identity, he came to them.
The WB told them of the 1023 and what was in it.
FBI fought tooth and nail to prevent any release of the 1023.
After several contempt threats, Wray let both Comer and Grassley view the unredacted 1023 in a FBI SCIF.
In viewing the 1023 in a SCIF, unredacted, it confirmed what the WB had told them.
Another threat of noncompliance, and Wray agreed to provide the 1023 to the rest of the committee in a SCIF. Wray complied, only this time, the 1023 was redacted, as was reported.
Grassely revealed, yesterday, on the Senate floor, the existence of some 17 odd tapes made by a high level Burisma offical as a CYA, of both the Biden's in question, revealed in the unredacted 1023, yet redacted in the viewing by the rest of the committee.
Grassley has vowed to release the unredacted 1023 to the public.
"There's a confidential human source that the FBI works with who has proven to be very credible, who reported a conversation with someone else. That confidential human source said that he had no way of knowing about the underlying veracity of the things he was being told.

It's not the source's information, it is the information that he reported from a conversation with someone else that he was not able to verify or authenticate.

That's why we're talking about second-hand hearsay here.

And so it is not the confidential human source who is the origin of the particular claim.

That source is the person who reported that someone else was saying this. And that is why this task force was created that examined it, and they determined there was no reason to move up the chain of investigative procedures."



 

Forum List

Back
Top