Ukrainian Prosecutors: Why Doesn’t the U.S. Dept. of Justice Want Our Evidence on Democrats?

Yves here. I can come up with some additional reasons why Team Trump hasn’t seized on Ukrainian evidence of efforts to interfere in the election on behalf of Democrats. First is that it might be dismissed as a desperate “See, everyone does this” while RussiaGate still has some life to it. The story will have more punch when the Russian conspiracy theorizing has died down to whatever its diehard base will prove to be. Second, as Neuburger intimates but does not flat out say, Trump may prefer Biden as a Presidential election opponent. Thus better not to use this intel at all or wait until Biden wins the primary.

Note this isn’t a new story, but it interestingly hasn’t gone away either…

By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny!

Joe and Hunter Biden in 2009 (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Wheels within wheels. This is from longtime investigative reporter John Solomon, writing in The Hill (emphasis mine throughout):

Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don’t you want our evidence on Democrats?

Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act.

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

Intrigued? Look at the elements:

  • Evidence of foreign interference to help Democrats win the 2016 election
  • Democratic Party politicians being protected from investigation by Ukrainian prosecutors
  • The Trump administration refusing to act or help

Here is some of what Ukrainian investigators have found. Solomon again:

Ukraine is infamous for corruption and disinformation operations; its police agencies fight over what is considered evidence of wrongdoing. Kulyk and his bosses even have political fights over who should and shouldn’t be prosecuted. Consequently, allegations emanating from Kiev usually are taken with a grain a salt.

But many of the allegations shared with me by more than a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials are supported by evidence that emerged in recent U.S. court filings and intelligence reports. The Ukrainians told me their evidence includes:

  • Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton. The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;
  • Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;
  • Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukrainian relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;
  • Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;
  • Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;
  • Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.

What should we make of this?

Democrats Getting Foreign Help in 2016?

The first two points above should frighten the “attack on our democracy” crew — looking at you, Adam Schiff, and you, Rachel Maddow — but so far, nothing from that quarter. It seems electoral attacks on our democracy and election matter only when Trump, Russians and Republicans are involved.

And yet:

Ukraine’s evidence, if true, would mark the first documented allegation of Democrats receiving assistance from a foreign power in their efforts to help Clinton win the 2016 election. … There is public-source information, in Ukraine and in the United States, that gives credence to some of what Ukrainian prosecutors allege.

A court in Ukraine formally concluded that law enforcement officials there illegally tried to intervene in the 2016 U.S. election by leaking documents of Manafort’s business dealings after he was named Trump’s campaign chairman. And a Ukrainian parliamentarian released a purported tape recording of a top Ukrainian law enforcement official bragging that he was responsible for the leak and was trying to help Clinton win.

Solomon notes a 2017 Politico report containing much the same information. One wonders why no one cares.

Joe Biden’s Ukraine Corruption Problem — “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired”

The second two bullets above relate to something I’ve been privately aware of for a while, that Joe Biden has a Ukraine corruption problem and it’s serious.

For example, from an April 1, 2019 report by Solomon on Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, the Ukraine’s leading private natural gas producer, we find this:

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, 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. official 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 identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.

Yet in that same report we learn that Joe Biden not only got that prosecutor fired, he bragged about it with the cameras rolling:

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Which led Solomon to ask these questions:

Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, to run for president in 2020: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work was performed for the money Hunter Biden’s firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?

Joe Biden’s Ukraine corruption problem is not just a recent one. The underlying story of how Hunter Biden and his company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, got involved with Burisma in the first place also raises questions:

Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden may have leveraged the [2014] Maidan coup and war in East Ukraine to strike lucrative oil fracking deals in East Ukraine, along with a John Kerry family friend.

Limassol, Cyprus based energy firm Burisma Holdings, collected large energy contracts in the East of Ukraine, with Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, closely tied to the energy production company, which pushed for fracking exploration on land owned by East Ukrainian residents.

Will anyone who matters in the U.S. talk about it?

Why Does Trump’s DOJ Not Care?

The last puzzle — after the alleged Ukrainian interference “in our democracy” on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and the Biden corruption allegations — is the lack of response by the Trump Department of Justice. As Solomon’s story details, it’s not like Ukrainian prosecutors haven’t tried to raise the alarm. Yet so far nothing from the Trump administration. Ukrainian prosecutors are still being denied visas to visit the U.S. so they can present their case to U.S. prosecutors.

There’s not enough evidence to show why there’s been no action on these charges, and, of course, action might still be forthcoming. But we can look at what the effect of burying this story and any potential prosecution might be by looking at who benefits.

1. Burying this story and preventing prosecution benefits Joe Biden. A corruption prosecution of his son Hunter in either the U.S. or Ukraine, plus the knowledge that Biden used his position as vice-president to protect his son, might well be the finishing blow to his still-not-announced 2020 candidacy.

2. Burying this story benefits mainstream Democrats generally, not just Joe Biden. Note that Biden said that Obama was in on the plan to blackmail Ukrainian officials to fire the prosecutor. The benefit to Obama’s thus-far untarnished reputation would be undeniable.

In addition, if indeed Joe Biden is the shining knight on which the Party, like a lady in distress, have pinned their ribbons and hopes, his fall could mark the end of those hopes. What do mainstream Democrats hope for from Biden? The defeat of Bernie Sanders in the primary, or anyone like him.

3. In an odd way, burying the story benefits Donald Trump as well. If 2020 will truly be another “change year” for the electorate, whom would Trump rather run against — an old school, been-around-too-long mainstream Party regular (with baggage), or a genuine change candidate like Bernie Sanders, a man whose crowds rival and surpass Trump’s own?


It’s speculative, of course, to assess motives at this point, but the benefits to those listed are obvious and easy to divine.

However this story develops, stay tuned. We’ll learn a lot if it breaks into the mainstream. We’ll also learn a lot if it doesn’t.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

63 comments

  1. voteforno6

    There could be a simpler reason why the Trump DOJ is keeping their hands off this one – a general aversion to prosecuting any form of corruption. As George Carlin said, it’s a club, and we ain’t in it. Trump and Biden certainly are.

    Reply
    1. Joe Well

      Expanding on that, could the underlying reason the Establishment was so open to Russiagate was that they could tell the whole thing was BS and posed no real risk of prosecution?

      Reply
      1. Mike

        Further, expanding more, it was all a deception ploy away from the real scandal, which is election fixing and deep corruption to justify class warfare right here at home. All the more need for both Dems and Reps to hide the reality by burying it under an avalanche of garbage.

        I wouldst wish to bid this land of Inania a final farewell…

        Reply
      2. PKMKII

        That’s the 12 D chess angle I’ve been pondering about Russiagate: Was the deep state always fine with Trump as he gave them carte blanche, and they puffed up the Russiagate scandal into the ears of Maddow and company, knowing they would bet the house on it? So when it all turned out to be a nothingburger, the liberals would look like fools chasing their own tails, and Trump would only gain from it.

        Reply
        1. chuck roast

          All the above makes sense.

          But Mueller knew early on, in the winter of ’17, that the Russia angle was bogus. He may have even known before that. So, he continued to investigate and ultimately goofed on a whole bunch of peripheral subordinates for obstructing justice and petty larceny crappola. Why would he continue his investigation if he wasn’t trying to get Trump to commit hari-kari by impeding justice?

          Reply
        2. WJ

          I think this is too simple. There is evidence of some high-level FBI discussions involving the possible transfer of the Presidency to Pence under the right conditions. Certain facets of the military-intelligence community really *were* petrified of a Trump presidency because they were not sure they would be able to control him–especially wrt Syria and Russia, two long-term game plans that the MIC was already committed to and was expecting to push hard under the approving nod of Clinton.

          Russiagate was an attempt to leverage the President into capitulating to the kind of interventionist militarism the MIC depends upon and were not sure they could count on Trump to support. It *did* have an effect on Trump’s original cabinet and is therefore probably not unrelated to the neocon cast of Trump’s current cabinet.

          Once the MIC knew that Trump had no principle or guts, and that he really was corrupt in a bunch of other ways, they gradually enforced their foreign policy views on him (and he made them more and more his own views–even to the extent that he allows his subordinates to countermand policy statements as happened wrt Syria and North Korea). At the same time, they began to bring Russiagate to an end.

          The aim was to ensure for “stability” by protecting corrupt institutions (the DNC), identifying a foreign scapegoat for domestic unrest (Russia), enforce greater censorship (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Prop or Not), secure continued MIC bankroll via NATO and Middle East proxy wars for Zionism.

          It served its purpose, in other wordss.

          Reply
          1. Chef

            Much of that makes sense and is aligned with my train of thought, but if there were two sides of the ‘deep-state’ vying for supremacy, why wouldn’t the neocon side use this opportunity to further weaken their opponent?

            Outside of the neocon v neolib battles, I think there’s also an element of show or public spectacle involved; how much is anyone’s guess.

            At the very least, we know it’s virtually all propaganda for one side or the other (or both).

            Reply
            1. Gatos

              I don’t go for multi-dimensional chess theories as they tend to extend credit beyond where it is deserved. With Trump we have energy sector supremacy and Israel acting as provacatur with US military at its back. Expansionist foreign policy in the name of propping up this failing system ( Venezuela, Iran).
              If Russiagate is a nothing burger, so is Bidengate. Or maybe there’s meat on those bones and no one really wants to “go there”. Either way, I get the feeling the people benefiting from our new president are slamming their foot on the accelerator and stuffing their pockets. There is no future, only the now.

              Reply
      3. vidimi

        or because if you start investigating the ukrainians, then you can investigate the saudis and israelis. trump may not want to go down that road.

        Reply
    2. Henry Moon Pie

      “general aversion to prosecuting any form of corruption”

      Things could get close to a Great Unraveling if this story were really investigated. And that will hurt our betters whether they are Ds or Rs.

      This seems a lot less Deep State and more:

      JOE: Did you see what the Obamas are gonna get from Netlix when we’re outta office?

      HUNTER: Where’ s your money, pops?

      JOE: Yeah, what am I supposed to eat on? Netflix ain’t askin’ me.

      HUNTER: Hey pops, me and some buds got some nice contacts in Ukraine. They can hook us up to some big time gas deals, but the government is givin’ them a hard time.

      JOE: Really? Hmmm. How big time?

      HUNTER: Nine figures.

      JOE: I’ll tell Barack tomorrow that I’ll look over things on the eastern front of NATO for a while. Give me somethin’ to do, ya know? You keep me up on what’s happenin’ with those deals.

      HUNTER: Sure thing, pops.

      God, I love ‘Murca.

      Reply
    3. Lambert Strether

      An even simpler reason:

      “Then, as his planet killed him, it occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were accident and error.”

      The administration is not consistently strong in its ability to execute….

      Reply
      1. Tyronius Maximus

        What about the timing angle? Say Biden gets the nomination. Wouldn’t this be a great scandal to use to destroy the Biden campaign right before the election? It would surely bolster Trump’s chances for reelection…

        Reply
  2. anonymous

    Barr testimony about Mueller report is today’s chapter in the Russiagate saga. Once that little matter has died down then the likelihood of Biden Ukraine issues being raised should increase. There is a strategy to the timing of which targets (Biden, Hillary, McCabe et al) to highlight in which order. The evidence is out there, as noted by numerous referenced sources, and is waiting in the queue.

    Reply
  3. The Rev Kev

    Certainly officials of the US Department of Justice have been spending most of their time trying to nail Trump to the wall on whatever that they could get him on so he owes no loyalty to them. I wonder if Trump is holding this back and then during campaign season next year, come out and say that there was collusion in 2016. But that it was not he and the Russians but that it was Clinton and the Ukrainians. If Clinton had won back in 2016, this story would never have seen the light of day.

    Reply
    1. ambrit

      Essentially, as far as the US MSM is concerned, this story is still not seeing the light of day.
      Gore Vidal was so right. We’re seeing more and more evidence of the truth of his quip about America’s Single Party. Since we are dealing with Neoliberalism, we cannot talk about a ‘One Party State’ anymore. Now we are dealing with a “One Market State.”

      Reply
      1. Oh

        Seems to me that the single party will not go after each other for real. Usually, it’s all an act. When push comes to shove “impeachment is off the table” like Nancy Pelosi said about Bush. Both parties support Empire, Banksters, Deficits and a Robin Hood in Reverse policy.

        Reply
        1. Doggrotter

          Dear Oh.
          My hope about the Trump Presidency was always that because Washington pissed all over him he would forgo the usual courtesies and put a few of the previous administrations top people in the mangle. If I drop the rose tinted glasses the chances are poor but one can always dream.
          In the meantime an unexpected Trump benefit might be that he marginalises the US so much in international affairs that future administrations will be curtailed in their foreign meddling….better find the glasses again

          Reply
          1. ewmayer

            The one undisputably good aspect of an establishment-hated boor like Trump being president is is how absolutely clear it has made the depth of the rot at the top, inluding the now-journalism-free, propaganda-spewing, always-lying-about-absolutely-everything MSM. As Lambert liked to say about the 2016 campaign and election, it’s been “very clarifying”. In that sense, Trump as an electoral “fuck you” to the corruptocracy of the DC/NY corridor has been exceedingly effective. As the Russiagate hysteria showed, they really have been unhinged by seeing the Boor-in-Chief on the TV, the front page of the newspapers and on the Internet every day. And rather than engage in the least smidgen of introspection and soul-searching, the same rotten establishment seems to be hard at work trying to make possible an even bigger feat of improbability, 4 More Years. I mean, lyin’, serial-gropin’, foreign-corruption-promoting Joe Biden, the senator from MBNA, or neoliberal “idpol checkbox queen” Kamala Harris, whose “black experience” consists of trick-turning her way into power on Willie Brown casting couch? Hahahaha! Cue favorite quotes about the french aristocracy circa 1788.

            Reply
    2. cuibono

      Really? Trying to nail him to the wall?
      I suppose a lot of folks fell for that. Make sure he toes the line , yes. Nail to the wall? Not buyin it.

      Reply
  4. Philip Martin

    The adjective “sleazy” comes to mind, as in “sleazy Joe Biden.”

    Never have been really comfortable with the guy. I want a New Deal/Fair Deal kind of Democrat. I want a party that protects the unprotected.

    Reply
    1. The Rev Kev

      His son Hunter, who got that job in the Ukraine with Burisma Holdings, is a piece of work too. Here is a section from his Wikipedia entry-

      In May 2013, Biden was selected as a direct commission officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve, a program that allows civilians with no prior service to receive a limited duty officer’s commission after attending a two-week class covering topics such as military history, etiquette, and drill and ceremony, in lieu of boot camp. Because Biden was past the cut-off age for the program, he needed a waiver. Biden received a second waiver because of a past drug-related incident. One month after commissioning, Biden tested positive for cocaine use and was discharged from the Navy reserve in February 2014.

      Reply
  5. WJ

    +1000

    One might add the more specific consideration that the collapse of the Democratic Party is not in the interest of the oligarchics behind both national parties. If the Democratic Party were to implode, it would likely be replaced by an actual democratic socialist party that would be far more powerful than the existent Democratic Party and would end up successfully implanting legislation to the benefit of the many.

    The Republican “failure” to pursue the evidence of corruption in the DNC emails likely has a similar motivation. Compare the lack of attention they have devoted to the actual, legally demonstrable fraud perpetrated by the DNC in 2016 with their fetishization of l’affaire Benghazi, and you will that the opposition between the two parties is always largely symbolic and scripted and is never allowed to seriously threaten the existence of either.

    Reply
    1. MichaelSF

      largely symbolic and scripted and is never allowed to seriously threaten

      Kind of like pro wrestling? Who do we know with a background in that field?

      Reply
      1. ewmayer

        My term is “Capitol Hill Kabuki” – when I think Pro Wrasslin I think more of Trump, whose PR shtick can be best understood as being that of a Pro Wrasslin heel. But whatever best connotes noisy ritualized theatrics signifying nothing but crooked-business-as-usual to you!

        Reply
          1. ewmayer

            Indeed, this could be the best way to understand the major-party machinations leading up to elections, now that Heel extraordinaire Trump has taken over the GOP. But shhh, don’t tell Nate Silver, we enjoy seeing him continue to flail cluelessly!

            Reply
    2. Mike

      Historically, both parties have shrunk from striking the final “coup” against each other – go back to Watergate, or even FDR’s stacking attempt with the Supreme Court. It is a symbiotic relationship, or, to put it in Hegelian-Marxist terms, a unity of opposites (actually, “apparent” opposites). Further, each must tie us into dualistic (Manichean) modes of thought where another path or ideology is out of the question.

      Reply
      1. JBird4049

        Historically, both parties have shrunk from striking the final “coup” against each other –

        That is true although the American Whigs melted away when the leadership could not come into a decision, or even a general consensus, on slavery. Should it continue and expand, continue but not expand, or be abolished as the growing Abolitionist Movement wanted? So the party membership left and either joined the Democratic Party or the several other mainly, but not exclusively, Northern parties supporting at least the containment of the South’s Peculiar Institution. The Republican Party was formed from the largest remnants of the Whigs with a modern American would call support for big businesses, public works especially in transportation (Abe Lincoln was a Railroad attorney) and anti-slavery. The Democratic Party split into Northern and Southern wings semi independent.

        The other time that either big party was threatened at all was during the Gilded Age when the Communist and Socialist Parties were really strong. Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose(Progressive) Party might have if Roosevelt had won in 1912.

        Note that it was not the major issues of the time that destroyed a political party, but it was the lack of change or even making a decision on them. The Whigs could neither change, nor even make a decision of any kind on slavery. So it shattered and died. The Republican and Democratic Parties always could. The decisions might not have been the right one at first, but they co-opted the ideas of leftists parties and kept trying to deal with the issues of the time.

        So will the major parties change or will they shatter. Either way how much violent repression is the political establishment willing to commit. A century ago aerial bombing and heavy machine guns (not the toy like M4/ 16 or the squad automatics but real machine guns) against union members and their families. In the 1960s and 70s it was flat out assassinations especially against the Leftists. Don’t be too sad as the reformers, activists, and leftists especially the Anarchists responsed with bombs and guns of their own.

        The first American Civil War happened because the political system could not handle the slavery issue so over a decade the increasing violence led to war. Much like the American Revolution although it was the miscommunications of both sides and the British government general cluelessness.

        The growing violence, repression, and counter violence was stopped ultimately by political and reforms. The Guilded Age, and even more the Great Depression, was tipping into war but the political establishment listened and changed albeit very reluctantly.

        Do either of the current parties have functioning political leadership willing to respond? I see something in Sanders and AOC. I know that there are outcast conservatives who want their party back. There are reformers across the spectrum, but will it be enough to make the changes in time, and how will the country handle both the political unrest and climate change at the same time?

        Reply
        1. Lambert Strether

          > That is true although the American Whigs melted away when the leadership could not come into a decision, or even a general consensus, on slavery

          Or:

          That is true although the American Whigs Democrats melted away when the leadership could not come into a decision, or even a general consensus, on slavery capital

          Fixed it for ya. I mean, when Ray Dalio says there’s a problem, there’s a problem, though as for solutions, discussion naturally takes place under Upton Sinclair Rules.

          Reply
          1. JBird4049

            Well, their jobs really do depend upon them not understanding, which does explains the function of the modern mainstream economics being taught in college.

            Reply
  6. Michael Fiorillo

    Indirectly related to this story is a question I’ve always had about the premises behind Russiagate.

    The Steele report was the predicate for initiating the Russiagate investigation by (to those in the McResistance) Saint Santa Claus Mueller. Virtually all published reports about it referred to its sources “in the Russian government.”

    That being the case, why was its use against Trump never referred to as Russian election meddling, or worse?

    Reply
  7. Summer

    Is that the default position? If it isn’t on the tv news, then it didn’t happen?

    OK. I’ll pretend I wasn’t informed.

    Yes, it is absolute insanity, but don’t you feel all safe and in a land of stability as long as I pretend?

    Reply
  8. shinola

    Is there such a thing as “corruption fatigue”?

    My first thought on reading the article was something to the effect of: “Ho, hum- corruption in American politics? Yeah, and the Sun rose in the east this morning.”

    I think I’m losing my ability to be shocked by this sort of thing (and that’s not good).

    Reply
  9. hemeantwell

    The article doesn’t say anything about the role the Ukraine is playing in the ginning up of tensions with Russia. Wouldn’t it have been in the interests of the rulers of western Ukraine to get Clinton, who was deservedly then seen as a more pro-war candidate, elected? I can’t imagine NATOheads being very pleased at the highlighting of an issue that brings their war drive out into the open.

    Reply
  10. Susan the other`

    Baked-in contradictions. The EU was willing to annex western Ukraine at least, except for the one small fact that it had no effective civil authority, was not technically even a nation, was riddled with secession, hadn’t paid its bills for natgas to Russia for a year, and couldn’t adjust it books enough to fake it. Nato was of a mind for annexing Ukraine, pushed by our State Department (and the late great John McCain) going so far as to instigate a coup. Hillary plopped it on the naive Vicki Nuland, but it was Hillary’s, and Obama’s, plot. Biden was there to plunder like a good politician with his hand out and the paperwork to make it look like his son Hunter actually did some work. At best, Ukraine could become the breadbasket of Europe. But it is beyond dirt poor. So Ukraine wasn’t much of a prize since it took insane Ukrainian photo-fascists to carry out Hillary’s coup and the EU couldn’t really stomach that one. Not to mention that it was so poor it would take a century for it to qualify for a loan. And other little impossibilities. Ukraine was a fiasco. It is poetic justice that they turned our elections into one too. Trump is wise to hesitate resurrecting this mess.

    Reply
    1. John A

      There were 3 things the US wanted from Ukraine:
      1. the naval port of Sevastopol to stuff the Russians in the Black Sea
      2. the fertile soil to import GMO crops into Europe
      3. gas fracking, hence Hunter and Joe with their noses in the trough.

      Ukraine without Crimea is worthless to the US.
      Europeans dont want GMO crops and no amount of propaganda will force the European dogs to eat that particular dog food
      Fracking is a bust already.
      Bottomline, Toria Nuland and her 5 billion plus biscuit handouts were a total waste of money without Crimea. All that is left is a corrupt shell of a country, the west of which want to be Poland, the middle Romania/Hungary and the east Russia. Inbetween loony nazis roaming around.

      Reply
      1. Bill Smith

        How was point one going to work given the Russians had a long term lease on that port? Kharkiv Pact?

        Reply
        1. The Rev Kev

          They would have just cancelled that lease. The US Navy was already contracting construction work out to be done at Sevastopol even before the putsch in preparation for their move there. Another factor to add to John A’s list is the massive gas reserves off the coast of Crimea that Russia picked up with Crimea’s return to Russia..

          Reply
            1. The Rev Kev

              Here’s one link that I found. When I read a similar article back in 2014, the article had a link to the US government website that advertises contracts-

              http://theduran.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/

              The schools were supposedly for actual school kids but if the takeover of the Crimean peninsular had succeeded, Sevastopol would have become a NATO base and such buildings likely taken over in any expansion program.

              Reply
      2. hemeantwell

        A fourth thing they wanted was the prospect of the Ukraine joining NATO, a development which intensifies a spiral of Russia military planning responses which can then be used to justify further “defensive” buildups by NATO forces, etc etc., a self-licking intermediate range ballistic missile-shaped ice cream cone.

        Reply
      1. Susan the other`

        I watch Deutsche Welle and France 24. That’s where I get most of my info on Merkel – she’s the one I watch. And she was making comments about the problems associated with annexing Ukraine, but, as usual, she was most interested in preserving the integrity of the EU so Ukraine went nowhere fast. There might be archival footage of how very diplomatically she handled it.

        Reply
  11. polecat

    Forget about Julius de Orange for the moment. Will any of the plethora of the Other 2020 pres. Democrat candidates bring these Biden ‘Ukraine’ issues up during the debates ?? I’d pay copious quatloos to see the fireworks resulting from such ‘questionable’ inflammations …

    Sanders, Tulsi, Gravel … are you paying attention ??

    Reply
    1. Andy Raushner

      Your missing the point. Sanders has his own issues. Trump Organization globalism blows “Ukraine” off the map. Matter of fact, it does the opposite of what you think.

      Reply
    1. Andy Raushner

      Sorry, I counter this with: When has the Justice Department REALLY investigated the Trump Organization. Most of the investigation has been “handled” with care as not to investigate Donald Trump onto a conclusion.

      The problems with the “Ukrainian Prosecutors” is they have nothing of value, unlike on Donald Trump and his organization that since after making contact in the mid-80’s has been implicated in money laundering, bribery, extortion, selling information for Russian, Saudi and Israeli networks. Why do you think the Kushner clan joined the Trump clan via their connections.

      I bet Clinton laughed her ass off when Anti-Putin Ukrainian supporters “turned in” Manafort…………didn’t work did it?

      Reply
      1. WJ

        One reason why Trump won’t *really* be investigated in this way is that most of the real criminality of his Presidency involves deals with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

        Reply
        1. Yikes

          Along with nearly everyone else in Congress, and many professional revolving door men in the administrative branch. Would not suprise me in the least to see Saudi Money even reached people like Scalia on SOCUS/Federal Courts Benches. CIA and FBI in particular have huge issues with dirty money taint.

          Reply
  12. Hameloose Cannon

    Pres Petro Poroshenko is about to have a runoff election with candidate Volodymyr Zelensky, so tensions are high. Aspersions are flying thick and fast. At the center of the post-Euromaidan corruption probe, the two ng licenses were for, one, Naftogazvydobuvannya, controlled by recipient of Trump campaign polling data, Donbass’s Rinat Akhmetov [awkward]. And two, Burisma, a competitor firm controlled by Yanukovych’s ex-Ecology Minister, Mykola Zlochevsky. Hunter Biden and former Polish President, Aleksander Kwasniewski, are on Burisma’s board for the purpose of turning up to *eleven* lobbying for EU and US investment into businesses that rely on Kremlin largesse that takes investment risk up a notch. If anyone is curious to know how Europe keeps the lights on, this is a great place to start.

    Reply
  13. Andy Raushner

    Because there is nothing there that contains that contains the type of collusion of subversion of little donnie’s gang. You people don’t get it and refuse to get it.

    Reply
  14. anon in so cal

    Bookmarked for later.

    Otherwise, there’s considerable mention of Biden’s corrupt actions in Ukraine on Twitter, and in alternative media. Biden surely endorsed the US-engineered Ukraine Maidan putsch (Nuland and the Hillary Clinton State Dept) that toppled the pro-RU, democratically-elected president, and installed Poroshenko. The US arms this corrupt regime, with its Azov NeoNazi elements. Kerry was involved in the post-putsch corruption, also.

    Not clear why Trump’s DOJ doesn’t pursue this. But wouldn’t the MSM immediately jump on this and use it to resuscitate the Russiagate psyops? Maybe Trump is too cowed to probe this as it inherently leads to the Ukraine regime change op.

    Reply
  15. Rhondda

    Interesting Ukrainian connections abound. Those interested should Google the Ukrainian-American Dem operative Alexandra Chalupa.

    Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire – POLITICO
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

    Jan 11, 2017 – Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa…

    Politico article is a little yaya-y for about the first 10 para but quickly picks up. Strangely anodyne language caught my attention. And the scent reminds me a bit of the perfume Nellie Ohr wears.

    Reply
    1. TheCatSaid

      In-depth investigative reporting on Ukraine:
      Lee Stranahan
      George Webb

      There is plenty of corruption on all sides with political/financial insiders and oligarchs. Personal background (Ukrainian or Russian?) is often not clear or maybe deliberately obfuscated when convenient.

      NATO is also a player.

      Reply
      1. Rhondda

        So agree, TheCatSaid. Ukie vs Russian is hmmm? But NATO. Atlantic Council. Fer sure.
        Oligarchs draped about like trendy goat fur rugs. Suede on side, fur on th’other.
        Been lovin’ me the transcripts of Congressional inquiries. Glenn. Nellie. Bruce. Etc.
        Comedy gold. If it wasn’t all so horrid and portentous of dangerous times ahead.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *