NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[Father Francis]

I guess you don't understand why chain of custody is a legal issue. The reason it is a legal issue is the same reason the data can't be taken at face value outside of a courtroom.

This isn’t a courtroom, it is a discussion board. LOL are you sayin we can’t look at evidences outside of a courtroom, examine them, discuss them and form opinions?

So, can we examine Mormonism and form opinions about LDS prophets and the church as a whole…outside of the “courtroom?”

But explain to me why I can’t form a opinion, based on the evidences that exist that one Hunter Biden was and has been involved in Shady dealing (saying it lightly) and two, that his father just might have covered for him, knew about what he was doing, and at the worst been involved in some of the shady deals?

Thanks

Reread what I wrote. Think about why chain of custody outside of the courtroom matters. If I knew enough about you and had a laptop you discarded I could easily create files, emails, whatever that are close enough to the truth to make people believe you did bad things. I don't care how squeaky clean you are, it can be done. That being said, it is even easier if you aren't squeaky clean. That's why chain of custody matters. It's pretty obvious and shouldn't have to be spelled out for you.

[honorentheos]

I am trying to just go through the e-mail data and speak to the data and let it fall where it falls…Honor declines to get into the data of the lap top and more, because other folks did not present the data in what he feels is the correct way.

I feel my having to start so many post with, "That isn't what happened" helps illuminate the problem here. And, yeah, the above isn't what happened.

You are now conflating my comments about the content of the emails in 2022 with why the reporting in 2020 didn't align with the hopes of the Trump campaign who expected the story to spread about whether or not Joe Biden was implicated in the emails, but instead found news organizations including friendly ones hung up on the way the information was being made public.

I've pointed out to you multiple times information showing the emails aren't the smoking gun you hang your conspiracy on. Here's an example from page 8 of this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=2776144#p2776144

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the Biden being dirty, right or wrong I believe that. But I can’t paint my side of the discussion unless the other poster entertains evidences to as what I believe.

We went through this over two years ago. You are just repeating the claims from then which were shown to be innuendo driven conspiracy thinking. And you ended it then with the videos and the belief the the investigation in Ukraine would ultimately validate your conspiracy. We talked about the videos then. I wasted time watching a couple of hours of the four. When the conversation turned to the evidence being there or else the Ukraine wouldn't be starting an investigation I told you I'd be happy to bet getting nipple piercings over the results. And the discussion ended. That investigation ended as expected and now two years later you are back with no nipple piercing but wanting to know why people are scared of more investigations, claims there are two sides to the facts, and reheating the same old claims with the same links.

But I will hear you out….explain to me why the data can't’t be examined on it’s own, apart from how Rudy and Trump released it?

As pointed out above, it has been looked into the intervening years and been demonstrated wanting when it comes to evidence against Joe Biden. So, why IS it that you won't acknowledge the current state of the evidence apart from the need for it to be accepted as implicating Joe Biden?

[Jersey Girl]

I don't understand why you don't line up the parts that paint the pattern you refer to so folks can examine it.

LOL…I’m trying to sister …Jersey Girl read the thread, that’s what I am trying to do? I tell you what…. Watch this video and then lets go through and discuss the issues. This is just a small bit of some of the canvass I am trying to paint a picture of…but it is a good start. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/13/n ... rainegate/

I've been following this and the other thread since they both began in this forum. I'm not quite sure why you abandoned the previous thread to start this one.

To be honest with you, I can't discern the beginnings of your evidences much less can I figure out where you headed with anything. I don't want to see a small bit of some of the canvass. Why not publish a dated time line of events here? That way folks can go through it and see the pattern you're referring to.

[Markk]

This isn’t a courtroom, it is a discussion board. LOL are you sayin we can’t look at evidences outside of a courtroom, examine them, discuss them and form opinions?

So, can we examine Mormonism and form opinions about LDS prophets and the church as a whole…outside of the “courtroom?”

But explain to me why I can’t form a opinion, based on the evidences that exist that one Hunter Biden was and has been involved in Shady dealing (saying it lightly) and two, that his father just might have covered for him, knew about what he was doing, and at the worst been involved in some of the shady deals?

Thanks

Reread what I wrote. Think about why chain of custody outside of the courtroom matters. If I knew enough about you and had a laptop you discarded I could easily create files, emails, whatever that are close enough to the truth to make people believe you did bad things. I don't care how squeaky clean you are, it can be done. That being said, it is even easier if you aren't squeaky clean. That's why chain of custody matters. It's pretty obvious and shouldn't have to be spelled out for you

FF, this a a discussion board, and read/listen to the op. My assumption is you did not. Were is your “chain of Custody” for your assertion that the emails were tampered with? MY support for their being reliable is the FBI, DOJ and the Director of National Intelligence, all said that there was no disinformation in the HD’s…and per my OP and previous comments on th either thread, the NYT, NBC, and other media ports that denied this, are now coming clean.

Your assertion does not hold any water. if you have evidence that the laptop was tampered with, please show a chain of custody with your facts…pretty silly hah.

[Markk]

LOL…I’m trying to sister …Jersey Girl read the thread, that’s what I am trying to do? I tell you what…. Watch this video and then lets go through and discuss the issues. This is just a small bit of some of the canvass I am trying to paint a picture of…but it is a good start. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/13/n ... rainegate/

I've been following this and the other thread since they both began in this forum. I'm not quite sure why you abandoned the previous thread to start this one.

To be honest with you, I can't discern the beginnings of your evidences much less can I figure out where you headed with anything. I don't want to see a small bit of some of the canvass. Why not publish a dated time line of events here? That way folks can go through it and see the pattern you're referring to.

I did…watch the video and actually read the other threads that you said you did…which you obviously did not because I gave specific times and dates several times…and Res started a thread with those dates, but must be taking some time off, I’m sure he will catch up when he comes back.

There is a lot written on this and you can easily do a little homework and get up to speed if you want. Watch the documentary it is a easy follow.

[Markk]

I am trying to just go through the e-mail data and speak to the data and let it fall where it falls…Honor declines to get into the data of the lap top and more, because other folks did not present the data in what he feels is the correct way.

I feel my having to start so many post with, "That isn't what happened" helps illuminate the problem here. And, yeah, the above isn't what happened.

You are now conflating my comments about the content of the emails in 2022 with why the reporting in 2020 didn't align with the hopes of the Trump campaign who expected the story to spread about whether or not Joe Biden was implicated in the emails, but instead found news organizations including friendly ones hung up on the way the information was being made public.

I've pointed out to you multiple times information showing the emails aren't the smoking gun you hang your conspiracy on. Here's an example from page 8 of this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=2776144#p2776144

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the Biden being dirty, right or wrong I believe that. But I can’t paint my side of the discussion unless the other poster entertains evidences to as what I believe.

We went through this over two years ago. You are just repeating the claims from then which were shown to be innuendo driven conspiracy thinking. And you ended it then with the videos and the belief the the investigation in Ukraine would ultimately validate your conspiracy. We talked about the videos then. I wasted time watching a couple of hours of the four. When the conversation turned to the evidence being there or else the Ukraine wouldn't be starting an investigation I told you I'd be happy to bet getting nipple piercings over the results. And the discussion ended. That investigation ended as expected and now two years later you are back with no nipple piercing but wanting to know why people are scared of more investigations, claims there are two sides to the facts, and reheating the same old claims with the same links.

But I will hear you out….explain to me why the data can't’t be examined on it’s own, apart from how Rudy and Trump released it?

As pointed out above, it has been looked into the intervening years and been demonstrated wanting when it comes to evidence against Joe Biden. So, why IS it that you won't acknowledge the current state of the evidence apart from the need for it to be accepted as implicating Joe Biden?

Honor th e-mails ar e just part of the issue. We haven’t even got into China and James Biden, or Bidens sister…also deal is Central America and Hawaii with the Biden family.

Did you watch the documentary?

[honorentheos]

I have no problem getting them all oath...that would have been the only "fair trial " scenario, but both side would avoid that to no end in that their are so many lies flying around being under oath would be suicide for these folks.

Do you honestly believe that there is not enough evidence against the Biden's to raise a concern, have you hnestly looked at all the evidence?

I wasn't talking about the impeachment hearing. The issue of politicians getting rich, or their associates getting rich, off of their offices is a bi-partisan issue and one I'm behind finding a fix within the orderly workings of government. There are certainly questionable issues around Biden's extended family leveraging their connections to Biden to make money that, while hardly unique, cheapen the ideal of democracy. Trump and his businesses are so explicitly profiting off of his office it's almost a perfect crime because it's happening right in front of our faces without effort to hide it. So when someone talks like it's just an issue with Biden I tend to shut them off because they aren't engaging the issue so much as playing up the issue for partisan politic BS.

As to Burisma, yeah, from what I've read on this board I have no reason to doubt I'm one of the better informed people on the subject here. The corruption issue in Ukraine was something I wrote about on this board before the July phone call. That Guardian article I linked to is valuable precisely because it pre-dated the politicizing of the issue into Republicans v. Democrats, White House v. Pelosi and Shiff posturing. The issue is far bigger than the accusations against Trump and quite frankly are part of perhaps a fatal rot undermining modern society. As the Guardian article put it:

For decades, hundreds of billions of dollars have vanished from the world’s poorest countries, finding their way – via the tax and secrecy havens of Europe, south-east Asia and the Caribbean – into the banking system, real estate and luxury goods markets of the west. According to the World Bank, between $20bn and $40bn is stolen each year by public officials from developing countries. Rich countries returned only $147.2m worth of these assets between 2010 and 2012 – far less than one cent out of every misappropriated dollar. And that may even understate the scale of the problem. Some lawyers involved in asset-recovery cases estimate the volume of money embezzled globally at around $1tn a year, which makes the tiny amount of money recovered look even feebler.

It's also part of the inequality problem here and throughout the west, and it's undermining democratic means of reversing it without voluntary recognition of the problem by many of those benefiting from it, or revolution. One's unlikely and the other is terrible for what it would mean. You don't want to live in a country where violent revolution is happening. Even more so, not a world where there is wide-spread violence and upheaval. But economic inequality combined with the effects of climate changes are moving the world almost inevitably in that direction. It's...well. Anyway. Ukraine.

So the article's value is it isn't focused on Trump or Biden but on the actually issue of corruption in Ukraine. It explains how the British government was trying to go after the president of Burisma in the first attempt to claw back a very small part of the stolen wealth of Ukraine to return it to the citizens of the country but the PG in Ukraine obstructed it in typical fashion leading to the prosecution failing.

There are clear good guys and bad guys when one is looking at the post-Yanukovich era and attempts to right the wrongs against the people of Ukraine. Zlochevsky, the president of Burisma, is clearly one of the bad guys. As the Guardian noted:

Burisma’s website makes clear that the periods when it has performed best have consistently coincided with the high points in its owner’s political career. During a previous Yanukovich government, in 2003-5, Zlochevsky chaired the State Committee for Natural Resources, and companies under his control won licenses to explore for oil. Then Yanukovich fell from grace, and the new government tried to strip Zlochevsky’s companies of their oil exploration rights – and he had to sue the government in order to keep them. Yanukovich won the presidency in 2010 and Zlochevsky became a minister. The good times returned: Burisma gained nine production licenses and its annual production rose sevenfold. After the revolution, Zlochevsky left the administration.

There are also a couple of names on the Ukrainian side that are almost certainly clean from corruption and attempting to make things better. Those being Vitaly Kasko and David Sakvarelidze. Claiming that any other person was attempting to honestly uncover corruption becomes a red flag you don't know what you're talking about.

The long and short of it is that Joe Biden's presentation of the White House position the loan guarantees would be withheld if then-President Poroshenko didn't get rid of PG Viktor Shokin was not helpful to Bursima, Hunter Biden's client. Shokin was part of the corruption problem blocking efforts to return the Ukraine's stolen wealth, as was Poroshenko as the Panama Papers revealed.

So, to help, here's a brief timeline so that you can see how it fits.

February 22, 2014: Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine, is overthrown in a revolution and flees to Russia after a crackdown on protests resulting on over a hundred people being killed. See Euromaidan.

February 27, 2014: Russian troops capture strategic points in Crimea and support the installation of a pro-Russian local government, effecting the annexation of Crimea for Russia on March 18th.

March 1, 2014: Beginning of the violent Russian-backed unrest in Eastern Ukraine. Still ongoing today.

April 2014: Western nations vow to support Ukraine's government in recovering the stolen wealth taken by Yanukovych and others during his regime.

April 14, 2014: $23 million dollars, the proceeds from the sale of an oil facility, being transferred between accounts was frozen as the first sign of this support. The money was tied to Mykola Zlochevsky, president of Bursima. From the Guardian article - the money was frozen at a special court hearing in London requested by the Serious Fraud Office. As described in the later court judgment, the SFO argued that “there were reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant [Zlochevsky] had engaged in criminal conduct in Ukraine and the funds in the BNP account were believed to be the proceeds of such criminal conduct”.


May 2014: Hunter Biden is hired onto the Burisma board of directors.

20 May, 2014:Gould had obtained 6,170 electronic documents from BNP Paribas related to Zlochevsky’s money, and assembled a special team to examine them. He also wanted evidence from Ukraine, so he wrote to the head of the international department of the general prosecutors’ office, Vitaly Kasko, in Kiev.

Kasko: "The investigation began but, no matter how much we pushed the investigators (in the general prosecutor's office), it was not effective,”

June 19, 2014: Vitaly Yarema is voted by parliament to become the new PG, replacing Voktor Pshonka who had been PG since 2012 under Viktor Yanukovych.

Roughly November-December 2014: Eventually, six months after Gould first wrote to him, Kasko stepped decisively outside his area of responsibility, and wrote to his boss in the prosecutor’s office to demand action.

“I said I wanted this to be investigated properly, that the Brits be told about it, and they get what they wanted,” recalled Kasko. “He said, ‘If you want, get on with it.’” It was hardly the most enthusiastic of endorsements, but it was enough for Kasko. He forced investigators to work evenings, and weekends. They put together a dossier of evidence that Kasko felt supported the SFO’s argument “that the defendant’s assets were the product of criminal wrongdoing when he held public office”, sent it to the SFO, and announced officially that Zlochevsky was suspected of a criminal offence in Ukraine.

It was only thanks to Kasko that the SFO had received any useful documents from Ukraine at all. “I asked the Brits, ‘What else do we need to do?’” Kasko remembered. “And they said: ‘That’s fine, that’s more than enough to defend the freezing order in court’.”

December 2, 2014: Unbeknownst to Kasko, the Ukraine PG office sent a letter to the lawyers defending Zlochevsky stating, among other things, Zlochevsky "was never named as a suspect for embezzlement or indeed any other offence, let alone one related to the exercise of improper influence in the grant of exploration and production licenses." This contradicts the fact Kasko was actively aiding the British in the investigation.

January 15, 2015: Justice in the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales rejects the case, referencing the letter multiple times as cause for the ruling. From the article - "The case remains a matter of conjecture and suspicion,” he wrote in his judgment. To confiscate assets, prosecutors have to prove that the frozen money related to a specific crime and, he ruled, the SFO had totally failed to do so.

February 10, 2015: Victor Shokin replaces Vitaly Yarema as Prosecutor General. Victor Shokin had previously blocked prosecution against those responsible for shooting protestors during the 2014 revolution.

February 15, 2016: Kasko resigns from the Ukrainain PG office as Deputy Prosecutor General, at least in part as protest against Shokin's appointment.

March 8, 2015: David Sakvarelidze publicly accuses Ukrainian prosecutors of having "taken a ($7 million) bribe to help Zlochevsky".

May 2015: Spokeswoman for the Serious Fraud Office comments to the reporter: “We are disappointed we were not provided with the evidence by authorities in the Ukraine necessary to keep this restraint order in place”.

September 2015: US ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, publicly states the Ukrainian prosecutors, "were asked by the UK to send documents supporting the seizure” of the $23m, but “instead sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting there was no case against him”. “Those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated,” he said.

September/October 2015: In retaliation, Ukrainian prosecutors begin investigations against Kasko.

2 November 2015: Assassination attempt is made on PG Viktor Shokin following multiple protests in October against corruption in the PG office.

December 2015: In a speech to Ukraine's parliament, Joe Biden states, “It’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform.” It was in route to leaving back to the US that he "urged Poroshenko to fire a corrupt prosecutor general or see the withdrawal of a promised $1 billion loan to Ukraine. “‘Petro, you’re not getting your billion dollars,’” Biden recalled telling him. “‘It’s OK, you can keep the [prosecutor] general. Just understand—we’re not paying if you do.’”

March 16, 2016: PG office, under Viktor Shokin, raids frequent critic of his corruption activities, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), claiming that it had misappropriated aid money.

March 2016: Biden calls President Poroshenko multiple times to reiterate that the US will not provide the loan guarantees as long as Viktor Shokin remains PG.

March 29 2016: Sakvarelidze is fired by PG Viktor Shokin from his job tasked to ferret out corruption . Kasko later says of this, “I didn’t want to stay there like the Queen of England and watch,” he said. “The biggest problem in the prosecutor’s office is corruption. Sakvarelidze and I went in to fight against it, and they threw us out.”

March 29, 2016: An hour after firing Sakverelidze, PG Viktor Shokin is removed from office by the Ukrainian parliament.

January 19, 2017: The day before Trump’s inauguration, Zlochevsky’s gas company announced it was becoming a funder of the Atlantic Council, a prominent Washington thinktank. The Atlantic Council declined to say exactly how much money the tycoon had offered, only that his donation had been between $100,000 and $249,000. A month later, Burisma hired a new director. Joseph Cofer Black does not appear to have any more experience of Ukraine than his colleague Hunter Biden but – as an ex-ambassador and a former director of the CIA’s counterterrorism centre under George W Bush – he is likely to have lots of useful contacts in Washington.

[honorentheos]

We can argue his motives all you want, but again to answer the original question, my answer is he felt their was enough their to warrant a looking into, and investigation by the President of the Ukraine. Many folks certainly feel the same, and like yourself, many folks are ducking discussing the evidence at any lenght and just parrot uh ah.

He asked the President of the Ukraine becasue he felt there was evidence that the Biden's were dirty, it is that simple.

Let me know when you are ready to go through the evidence you seem to claim does not exist?

Thanks

Markk -

The only reason Trump was after Biden in the Ukraine was because another corrupt PG, Yuriy Lutsenko who took over after Shokin in 2016 and was ousted by current President Zelensky when he took office and began to actually deal with corruption, was feeding stories to Giuliani about it. Yuriy Lutsenko is one of the most corruptible, insanely devious people in the entire story. Lutsenko served in the governments of both Viktor Yanukovych who pardoned him after he was convicted of embezzlement and abuse of office probably for falling out of favor with Yanukovych, as well as later under Petro Poroshenko. Trump specifically tried to get current President Zelensky to put him back in as PG.

At some point you can show you are sincere about wanting to engage with the evidence by doing more than hinting at headlines and, you know, engaging with the actual evidence.

[honorentheos]

Markk, Zlochevsky was and is known to be corrupt. That's not news. The entire point of the timeline was to show that the investigations into him were being held up by the Office of the Prosecutor General and interfered with by corrupt Ukrainians kleptocrats whose history and ties go back into the early 2000s. Shokin, Yanukovych, Poroshenko, Lutsenko - they all were tied up in the same corruption issues as Zlochevsky.

You aren't paying attention to what is going on by getting distracted because Hunter Biden was hired onto the board of Burisma. Yeah, that was dumb, and yeah that looks bad. Hell, it could even be bad in that it could be part of why Biden advocated for the US supporting Ukrainain gas expansion in addition to fostering their independence from Russia. Or it could be that Biden knew this was a needed move and it affected the behavior of his son, etc. But Biden conveying the message that Shokin needed to go is CLEAR as it gets an act that was against protecting Zlochevsky and works against that narrative.

[honorentheos]

“Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation. https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/ex-ukrain ... be-report/ (Giuliani notes on interview with Shokin January 2019)

Zlochevsky’s Burisma group was supplying Poroshenko with natural gas. This is believed to be part of a deal that included Burisma providing free gas to Poroshenko's company, Pishivka Glass, who would "pay" for the gas but the money would be sent back to Poroshenko in a laundering scheme.

The case you reference above is one where Zlochevsky was accused of embezzlement, that then was turned into a tax evasion case. He supposedly paid $80 million to have his assets unfrozen as a bribe to Poroshenko. Yuriy Lutsenko was the PG who closed the case. That happened in January 2017. The September 2016 date is when Zlochevsky was removed from the most-wanted list, not when a case was closed against him. Lutsenko, the source for all of the accusations Trump believed regarding the Bidens, was the one responsible. You know how the corruption in the Ukraine worked? Just like the above. Bribes and leverage, moving money up and around the powerful while the people of Ukraine paid the actual cost. If that doesn't make sense to you, watch the damned Godfather or Goodfellas or something.

Seriously. You're focused on suspected impropriety on the part of the Bidens in the face of obvious, massive, historically entrenched corruption and siding with a couple of the most dirty parties. Unless the person is Vitaly Kasko, who is back in the PG office as Deputy Prosecutor General under the reforms started by President Volodymyr Zelensky as of September, or David Sakvarelidze there is almost every reason to assume the person being referenced is deeply tied into the corruption issues going back decades.