Why did nobody tell Trump that it would be a bad idea to get Ukraine to investigate Biden?

Yet if you still were, you know the answer to the question.

 

Well, you could have just looked for yourself, but here you go.

https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

Also note that the US has veto power over board decisions.

 

Accurate.

 

Thank you for the link. Yes I see the US holds the largest individual stake, but not anywhere near enough to take unilateral action. Was Biden the US governor or alternate at any point?

 

The process is not unilateral action. Control of the Board is obvious, though.

Does not the US regularly issue unilateral sanctions that are heeded by other countries merely on the threat of them being sanctioned, too? That is the real power at play here.

I think you are looking at it wrong in trying to find a direct Biden-IMF link. It seems to me that young Biden was positioned for PrivatBank to take advantage of IMF loans yhat were coming Ukraine's way.

 

It was a good idea for Ukraine to investigate corruption.

When did it become unfashionable to root out corruption?

 

Here .... this may help in understanding. (Remember the PrivatBank/Burisma connection)

https://harpers.org/blog/2015/08/undelivered-goods/

.......Stopping Putin in his tracks would clearly have earned the master raider merit in the eyes of policymakers in Washington and other Western capitals, which may just explain how it was that while Firtash was under the shadow of the U.S. indictment, no one made too much of a fuss at the disappearance of an estimated $2 billion in IMF aid for Ukraine that speedily exited the country via Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank.

The international financial agency had rushed the money to Ukraine in April, in response to what IMF managing director Christine Lagarde called a “major crisis.” She went on to hail the government’s “unprecedented resolve” in developing a “bold economic program to secure macroeconomic and financial stability.” Over the next five months the international agency poured the equivalent of $4.51 billion ($2.97 billion in “Special Drawing Rights”—the IMF’s own currency) into the National Bank of Ukraine— the country’s central bank. Much of this money was urgently needed to prop up the local commercial banks. In theory, the IMF appeared to require direct supervision of how the Ukrainian banks used the aid. In fact, it appears the banks got to select their own auditors.

As the largest bank, Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank stood to garner the largest share of the international aid. Published estimates put this share as high as 40 percent. Despite the torrent of cash, the banks’ situation did not improve; nine months into the program, the IMF announced: “As of end January 2015 . . . the banking system’s capital adequacy ratio stood at 13.8 percent, down from 15.9 percent at end-June.” Where had the money gone?

Although we hear much about corruption in countries such as Ukraine in general terms, a precise, detailed accounting of the means by which an impoverished country has been stripped of precious assets is not usually easy to come by. In this case however, thanks to investigative work by the Ukrainian anticorruption watchdog group Nashi Groshi (“Our Money”), we can actually watch the process by which the gigantic sum of $1.8 billion was smoothly maneuvered offshore, in the first instance to PrivatBank accounts in Cyprus, and thence into accounts in Belize, the British Virgin Islands, and other outposts of the international financial galaxy.

The scheme, as revealed in a series of court judgments of the Economic Court of the Dnipropetrovsk region monitored and reported by Nashi Groshi, worked like this: Forty-two Ukrainian firms owned by fifty-four offshore entities registered in Caribbean, American, and Cypriot jurisdictions and linked to or affiliated with the Privat group of companies, took out loans from PrivatBank in Ukraine to the value of $1.8 billion. The firms then ordered goods from six foreign “supplier” companies, three of which were incorporated in the United Kingdom, two in the British Virgin Islands, one in the Caribbean statelet of St. Kitts & Nevis. Payment for the orders—$1.8 billion—was shortly afterwards prepaid into the vendors’ accounts, which were, coincidentally, in the Cyprus branch of PrivatBank. Once the money was sent, the Ukrainian importing companies arranged with PrivatBank Ukraine that their loans be guaranteed by the goods on order.

But the foreign suppliers invariably reported that they could not fulfill the order after all, thus breaking the contracts, but without any effort to return the money. Finally, the Ukrainian companies filed suit, always in the Dnipropetrovsk Economic Court, demanding that that foreign supplier return the prepayment and also that the guarantee to PrivatBank be cancelled. In forty-two out of forty-two such cases the court issued the identical judgment: the advance payment should be returned to the Ukrainian company, but the loan agreement should remain in force.

As a result, the loan of the Ukrainian company remained guaranteed by the undelivered goods, while the chances of returning the advance payments from foreign companies remain remote. “Basically this transaction of $1.8 bill[ion] abroad with the help of fake contracts was simply an asset siphoning [operation] and a violation of currency legislation in general,” explained Lesya Ivanovna, an investigator with Nashi Groshi in an email to me. “The whole lawsuit story was only needed to make it look like the bank itself is not involved in the scheme . . . officially it looks like PrivatBank now owns the products, though in reality [they] will never be delivered.”

 

So it wasn't a troll but a hilariously bent, inaccurate belief that NPR, BBC and AP lean right? Sad, but explains so much.

As far as you citing anything, no you haven't, and no you won't because if you do the biased nature of the "rater" will INSTANTLY become apparent. There was such a biased rater of political lean in media that LW and paid shills tried to post here and got laughed/debunked away a couple years back. Probably the same thing.

 

It probably happens a lot with Trump.

 

Whatever channels he uses are official to him, Presidents have a history of using personal envoys. And it appears the DOJ has an ongoing investigation that has recently turned into a criminal investigation. Trump requesting the President of another country to work with us, as required by treaty, is nothing new and nothing improper.

Again the reasonable suspicion at the least more like probable cause Hunter Biden was engaged in corruption with Ukraine oligarchs who were paying him so they could use his name to gain access to State Department officials in order to influence matters with our government needs to be investigated along with the information we have concerning Ukraine interference with our elections attempting to help insure Trump would lose. I understand one of the witnesses Schiff is denying is a person of interest in that latter matter.

Why is that being missed here? We STILL need to investigate those matters.

 

It's not his fault that an inssue that needs a full investigation might produce bad press for an opposition candidate. Did that stop the Obama administration from starting an investigation into candidate Trump and his campaign and then President-elect Trump and his staff?

 

So far every witness has testified that a Burisma investigation and what happened in 2016, not Biden was the statement that was to be made by Ukraine.

 

As long as the both know it is an open line and they do not discuss classified information, and of course the President has ultimate authority in what to declassify, what's the issue. Perhaps Sondland should have excuses himself and walk down the street, the President didn't order him to be at the restaurant or to remain seated, and not allow others to listen in to the conversation. But just another yawn........

 

And both need to be investigated, we need to know the facts about both.

 

Because it isn’t a bad idea. Getting Ukraine to investigate corruption as a condition to receive US aid is a very commendable standpoint. If that ensnares the Bidens, maybe skimming off the aid for personal benefit wasn’t such a good idea after all.

 

Trump doesn't listen to anyone. He was doing tweet attacks from the WH today.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...n-nunes-during-impeachment-hearing/ar-BBX0qFW

 

Obama did nothing as you said. The FBI launched the investigation sue to the collaborAtion that was occurring between trump and his campaign.....try to stay away from debunked conspiracy theories.


We are talking about bribery, extortion, obstruction, and abuse of power. trump better pray he is re-elected. A Democratic President may not hesitate to jail the criminal bastard....

 

Like I said....an eight year old with no filter...no one to tell him...."You are an Idiot!"

 

Yes... Good description. but I would be worried if my 8 year old as like that.

 

AHHHH DUH the investigations into Trump began as counter-intelligence investigations which Presidents sign off on and are kept abreast of and I would assert ESPECIALLY if the target is the opposition candidate to his party. To believe that the alleged "evidence" that the Republican candidate for the Presidency was a Russian asset, working in collusion with Russians would not have made a beeline into the office of the President to be FULLY informed so as to determine the proper course of actions is absurd. If THAT is true the the threat of the Deep State is even GRAVER.

And not one witness has testified to any direct knowledge of bribery, extortion, obstruction or abuse of power. You may not like what he did, you may not want corruption between our country and Ukraine investigated, but it was none of those items on your list.

 

You would be worried that an 8 year old became a billionaire and president of the United states? Wow .

 

I would be worried about a country that elected such an idiot. I don't know what being a man means to you...


This may be useful.

Lol. Only one small detail.Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. Shokin was fired because he wasn't investigating corruption.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Documents are on file with copies of letters sent from Shokin's office confirming the case into the company Burismas'' owner Zlochevsky was closed.
See for yourself below the time line and the fact the prosecutor Shokin had resigned
months before Feb 2016 but on paper only. By March 2016 he was back in the office leading to an even bigger up roar that resulted in his finally being fired in April 2016.
There was a British investigation in 2014-2015 and Burisma's owner was the subject of it so they had to know if an investigation was open in Ukraine involving him or his company.
Shokin’s Office sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him.
Feb. 16, 2016 – Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin resigns, then returns to office before finally being oustedUkrainian news media report on Feb. 16 that Viktor Shokin resigned as Prosecutor General after months of intense criticism for failing to adequately pursue any major corruption cases. But wait … despite President Poroshenko’s public call that day that Shokin resign and the apparent submission of a resignation letter on Feb. 19, media cited a prosecutor in Shokin’s office on March 16 saying the chief prosecutor was back after a “long leave.” Finally, on March 29, the Parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve Poroshenko’s recommendation to dismiss Shokin.
The European Union issued a statement hailing his departure. The respected English-language Kyiv Post writes, “By the end of his term, he was likely one of the most unpopular figures in Ukraine, having earned a bad reputation for inaction and obstructing top cases.” The paper also says it “wasn’t able to find any public comments that Shokin made about [Burisma] during his 14 months in office.”
Feb. 18 and 19, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks by phone with Ukrainian President Poroshenko. The Feb. 19 U.S. Embassy statement says Biden again urged the Ukrainian leader to “to accelerate Ukraine’s efforts to fight corruption, strengthen justice and the rule of law, and fulfill its IMF requirement
April 14, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by phone, emphasizing “the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General who would bolster the agency’s anti-corruption efforts and strongly support the work of its reformers.” Biden does the same in a call the same day with newly elected Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

See also entries above: At time of British investigation in 2014-2015, Shokin’s Office sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him.

A chronology of "Ukrainegate" and the Trump-Giuliani pressure on Ukraine to investigate former Vice President and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.
www.justsecurity.org

 

Hunter is a navy drop out admitted drunk/coke addict we wouldn't know this until Trump blew the whistle.

 

So what? Aside from Trump being thrilled to do it.

 

So we didn't have a right to know, the rumors have been floating around for a bit.

Trump blew the whistle and now you want to impeach him over it