Trump Supporter Brutally Beaten Is Speaking Out And Fighting Back

  • Thread starter Thread starter abucs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
drcube:
He was corrupt and it sounds like everyone knew it.
Click to expand...
Still not responsive. “everyone knew it” demonstrates nothing.
Click to expand...
The International Monetary Fund wanted Shokin fired because they thought he was corrupt.
Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation.

David Sakvarelidze was five months into a new job as Ukraine’s reformist deputy chief prosecutor when a witness came forward - a sand producer in the Kiev region - who complained of men extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars. It took a while to persuade the man to give evidence. But when he did, and the investigation began, the trail led to two of the country’s highest-placed prosecutors.

A search of the men’s apartments revealed a scene that looked like a comic heist: bags full of cash, diamonds and other precious stones. But that was not the only incriminating evidence. Documents seized at the time indicated the men appeared to have a connection to the top prosecutor in the land, Viktor Shokin.

Police found copies of Shokin’s passports, property registration certificates and even his licence to carry firearms. One of the two men, it transpired, was Shokin’s former driver who had subsequently climbed the ranks behind his boss.

For Sakvarelidze, there were clear suspicions the two men may have been carrying out the business of the chief. But his attempts to investigate were frustrated. Soon, he faced a corruption investigation himself. At loggerheads with Shokin, he was pushed out of his job within the year.

There is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. But by all means, believe the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump tweets out.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There is a long list of Western organizations,
Click to expand...
Don’t forget this one:
n April 2014, … British officials froze Zlochevsky’s London bank accounts containing $23 million. Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, an independent government agency, was conducting a money-laundering investigation and refused to allow Zlochevsky or Burisma Holdings, the company’s chief legal officer, and another company owned by Zlochevsky access to the accounts.

But the British money-laundering investigation was stymied by Ukrainian prosecutors’ refusal to cooperate. The Ukrainian prosecutors would not turn over documents needed in the British investigation, and without that documentary evidence, a British court ordered Britain’s Serious Fraud Office to unfreeze the assets.

In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gave a speech in which he attacked the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office for failing to cooperate with the British investigation. In his speech — which I quoted in my story — Pyatt mentioned Burisma’s owner by name.

“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,” 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.”
Click to expand...

 
And this:
On Sept. 24, 2015, Geoffrey Pyatt, then the American ambassador to Ukraine, spoke in Odessa about the scourge of corruption. It was about a year and a half after what is sometimes called the Revolution of Dignity, when Ukrainians overthrew the kleptocratic, Russian-aligned regime of Viktor Yanukovych. The country was trying to move in a more liberal, European direction. Corruption, said Pyatt, threatened to hold the new Ukraine back.

Pyatt called out the office of Viktor Shokin, then the prosecutor general of Ukraine. “Corrupt actors within the prosecutor general’s office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform,” he said. Pyatt specifically lambasted Shokin’s office for subverting a British case against a man named Mykola Zlochevsky, Yanukovych’s former ecology minister.

In 2014, as part of a money-laundering investigation, British authorities froze $23 million Zlochevsky had in London. They requested supporting documentation from Shokin’s office. Instead, it intervened on Zlochevsky’s behalf. “As a result the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus,” said Pyatt.

“Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up the system and blocking corruption cases,” a former official in Barack Obama’s administration told me. Vice President Joe Biden eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin’s ouster.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
the men appeared to have a connection to the top prosecutor
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle said:
For Sakvarelidze, there were clear suspicions the two men may have been carrying out the business of the chief
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle said:
There is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. But by all means, believe the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump tweets out.
Click to expand...
No. But some persuasive evidence would be nice before criminalizing a man who is not being prosecuted.

The liberals’ satisfaction with hearsay on hearsay and vague allegations with no facts would be amazing if it weren’t in service of their condemnation of Trump. Shokin might be dirty and he might not be. But the fact is that Biden got him fired by threatening to withhold American financial aid, and he was the one investigating Biden’s son’s firm at which his son was being paid millions to do something or other. Biden shouldn’t have been involved in that firing, dirty or not, and I don’t think even liberals deny that.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. But by all means, believe the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump tweets out.
Click to expand...
No. But some persuasive evidence would be nice before criminalizing a man who is not being prosecuted.
Click to expand...
I gave you a long list of people that were persuaded. It is amazing how far Trump supporters will go to avoid being persuaded.
…vague allegations with no facts…
Click to expand...
I listed facts, and the allegations were not vague.
But the fact is that Biden got him fired by threatening to withhold American financial aid, and he was the one investigating Biden’s son’s firm…
Click to expand...
False. The “investigation” was dormant before Biden’s son even joined the firm. Shokin was not investigating him.

Shokin’s office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company.

The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Still not responsive. “everyone knew it” demonstrates nothing.
Click to expand...
Leaf and dvd covered this, but, again, I wonder why we need to repeat what has already been explained.
Ridgerunner said:
Certainly sex outside of marriage is a problem and, as I pointed out, the “out of wedlock” rate for live births in some communities is the great majority, as is the “out of wedlock” abortion rate.
Click to expand...
I think you are ignoring the statistics because they force you to a conclusion you don’t like. One in 25 pregnancies in a marriage ends in an abortion. One in 4 pregnancies outside a marriage ends in an abortion. I believe that greater emphasis can be placed on moral sexual behavior and this would result in many fewer abortions.
Ridgerunner said:
But you haven’t even proved that Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels yet, let alone that she got pregnant, let alone that she had an abortion. You just want it to be true
Click to expand...
I don’t need to prove this. Trump certainly has had affairs and sex outside of marriage (after all, his VietNam was avoiding VD in the 70s). We have already established how this behavior results in abortions. Whether or not Trump is responsible for an abortion would only be do to the luck of the draw.
Ridgerunner said:
That wish does not justify participating in abortion by promoting the politicians who support it.

What equal or greater evils than abortion justify supporting abortion-promoting politicians?
Click to expand...
There has been a great drop in the number of abortions over the last decade. This, despite it still being legal. I personally think that there are greater impacts on the number of abortions than its legality. A stronger social support system will reduce the number of abortions. Having leaders that embrace moral sexual behavior will reduce the number of abortions. And, simply put, I have spent almost my entire life and abortion is still legal, despite the Republicans claiming to be pro-life and having control of government as often as not. I just don’t think voting because someone claims to be pro-life actually solves the issue anymore.

Add in the other evils you might get (how many deaths result from a President that is incompetent in foreign policy, or because racism is now out in the open, or because the government is in debt to pay for tax cuts without reducing spending), I am comfortable that proportional reasons exist to vote for either party without passing beyond remote cooperation with evil. I certainly think your view that voting for a pro-choice politician is the same as holding the knife in an abortion to be one with no foundation in Catholic moral teaching.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I gave you a long list of people that were persuaded. It is amazing how far Trump supporters will go to avoid being persuaded.
Click to expand...
That’s why I didn’t bother. He tends to repeat falsehoods that have been debunked no matter how many times you point him towards the truth.
 
Ridgerunner said:
and he was the one investigating Biden’s son’s firm at which his son was being paid millions to do something or other.
Click to expand...
Interesting that FOX now claim that Hunter Biden’s payments from Ukraine were $166,000 a month. (up from previously reported $50,000 a month)

 
abucs said:
Interesting that FOX now claim that Hunter Biden’s payments from Ukraine were $166,000 a month. (up from previously reported $50,000 a month)
Click to expand...
No company spends that kind of juice unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.

The only thing Hunter offered was political influence via his daddy.
 
Theo520 said:
No company spends that kind of juice unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.

The only thing Hunter offered was political influence via his daddy.
Click to expand...
It makes me wonder how much is spent by companies to ‘stay’ in Trump hotels, adding greatly to Trump’s bottom line. No company spends that kind of money unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.
 
Theo520 said:
No company spends that kind of juice unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.

The only thing Hunter offered was political influence via his daddy.
Click to expand...
I think on some level everyone knows this is corruption involving tax payers funds.

The obvious question is whether the powers that be simply accept it.

It appears that for much of the media the answer is yes.

Hopefully the Justice Department has a different answer. (Be back later).
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
It makes me wonder how much is spent by companies to ‘stay’ in Trump hotels, adding greatly to Trump’s bottom line. No company spends that kind of money unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.
Click to expand...
Yea, you wonder a lot when you are trying to deflect from the obvious.

Good luck with that.

Or you could expand your knowledge base, learn some accounting and how businesses operate.
 
Theo520 said:
Yea, you wonder a lot when you are trying to deflect from the obvious.

Good luck with that.

Or you could expand your knowledge base, learn some accounting and how businesses operate.
Click to expand...
Clearly, I know much more about how hotels work than others. The variable cost of an occupied hotel room vs. an unoccupied room is about $50. Paying $250 for that room is $200 that goes to the bottom line. Great way to legally bribe if you ask me. Like you said, no company pays that kind of money unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.
 
drcube said:
Clearly, I know much more about how hotels work than others. The variable cost of an occupied hotel room vs. an unoccupied room is about $50. Paying $250 for that room is $200 that goes to the bottom line. Great way to legally bribe if you ask me. Like you said, no company pays that kind of money unless they are getting their bread buttered in return.
Click to expand...
As I said, you need more education.

The amount that trickles down to his piggy bank after OH and taxes is miniscule. That’s not how you bribe someone with your cash.
 
Theo520 said:
As I said, you need more education.

The amount that trickles down to his piggy bank after OH and taxes is miniscule. That’s not how you bribe someone with your cash.
Click to expand...
And yet you continue to be wrong while pretending you’re right. The vast majority of the overhead are sunk costs. That’s why the industry obsesses over occupancy rates. I won’t even get into renting conference rooms and bar tabs. You really need to do some research before you respond.
 
Theo520 said:
Yes, it’s in the bank records.
I already gave you a link to another news source.
Click to expand...
  1. I looked at the eight posts that the forum software shows that you have made on this thread. None of them contain any links at all.
  2. While the true information has been hopelessly garbled within the echo-chamber, there correct information is that payments of this size were made to the firm Rosemont Seneca Partners in which he is a partner. Previous discussion of payments to Hunter Biden referred, typically to remuneration as a board member, not compensation to his firm - although I am not sure that that discussion did not also conflate personal remuneration with payments to the company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top