#Ruslan Ryaboshapka | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

Top Diplomat Described ‘Crazy’ Plan to Withhold Aid From Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/kurt-volker-impeachment.html

🚨🚨BREAKING NEWS ALERT 🚨 🚨

Ukraine to Review Criminal Case of Firm Linked to Biden’s Son

By Andrew E. Kramer | Published Oct. 4, 2019 Updated 8:20 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted October 4, 2019 9:10 AM ET |

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s top prosecutor said on Friday that he would review several important cases previously handled by his predecessors, including a criminal case involving the owner of a natural gas company that employed a son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The development came amid an impeachment inquiry against President Trump connected to a request he made to the Ukrainian president asking him to investigate Mr. Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, and his son’s work in Ukraine.

It raises questions of whether Ukraine was, in effect, bowing to public and private pressure from the president of the United States, on which it has depended on for millions of dollars in aid.

The prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, said he intended to review 15 cases in all, and mentioned several high-profile investigations of wealthy Ukrainians, including the owner of the natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, where Mr. Biden’s son Hunter served on the board until earlier this year.

He said no foreign or domestic officials tried to influence his decisions on specific criminal proceedings, or in regards to the Bidens or the Burisma case.

Mr. Ryaboshapka told journalists at a briefing in Kiev on Friday: “The prosecution service is beyond politics. We are conducting an audit of all cases, including those which were investigated by the previous leadership of the prosecutor’s office.”

If laws were violated, he added, “we will react accordingly.”

Mr. Trump’s repeated public requests that the Ukrainian government investigate a case touching on a likely opponent in next year’s election — what he described in a phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in July as a “favor” — is central to the formal House committee impeachment inquiry called by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The inquiry is examining whether Mr. Trump betrayed his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist the aid of a foreign power to tarnish a political rival. Mr. Trump has vigorously denied doing anything wrong, calling his phone call with Mr. Zelensky “perfect.”

No evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son has emerged, and the elder Mr. Biden has denied the accusations. But Mr. Trump has doubled down, urging China to investigate the Bidens and charging that the country lavished $1.5 billion on Hunter Biden in order to influence his father and win favorable trade deals with the United States.

Mr. Ryaboshapka’s comments on Friday were the first indication of how Ukrainian criminal justice officials were handling one of the two investigations that Mr. Trump raised in the call.

On the call, Mr. Zelensky of Ukraine suggested that he would assist with an investigation of the firm, according to White House reconstructed notes of the phone call. The Ukrainian president said that a new prosecutor general would soon be appointed who would be “100 percent my person” and would “look into the situation.”

Mr. Ryaboshapka did not say how long his audit of those cases would last. His review is needed before a decision on any further action could be taken.

Texts From Top Diplomat Described ‘Crazy’ Plan to Keep Aid From Ukraine

A text exchange given to Congress as impeachment investigators questioned their first witness shows an internal dispute over whether the president was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine.

By Nicholas Fandos, Julian E. Barnes and Peter Baker |Published Oct. 3, 2019 Updated Oct. 4, 2019, 5:53 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted October 4, 2019 9:10 AM ET |

WASHINGTON — A top American diplomat in Ukraine repeatedly raised concerns with colleagues about the White House’s decision to withhold $391 million in security aid from Ukraine, describing it as a “crazy” plan to withhold security assistance “for help with a political campaign,” according to texts released Thursday as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

The texts, which were turned over to Congress by Kurt D. Volker, the State Department’s former special envoy for Ukraine, come from a series of early September exchanges. They appear to show a dispute among American diplomats over whether the president was trying to use security aid or a White House meeting with the country’s new leader as leverage to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on a leading political rival — a charge at the heart of the impeachment investigation.

One message, written by William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, suggested that Mr. Trump was holding back the package of military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip to influence the country’s president to do his political bidding.

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Sept. 9 to Mr. Volker and Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union.

Mr. Sondland replied that he believed he had “identified the best path forward” for unfreezing the assistance. But he also took issue that there is any sort of direct agreement, writing in response, “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He then suggested the conversation move to phone rather than text.

That exchange and others emerged as congressional investigators met privately for more than nine hours on Capitol Hill with Mr. Volker, who is the first witness in their growing impeachment inquiry into whether Mr. Trump tried to bend American policy for his own political benefit by pressuring President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.

While the president has openly admitted that he wanted Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden and his son Hunter Biden, a crucial question has been whether Mr. Trump tried to use the security aid or a meeting at the White House as leverage. The money was delayed until the Trump administration released it last month amid a bipartisan outcry from lawmakers.

In his text, Mr. Sondland added, “The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

It was not immediately clear what led Mr. Taylor to conclude that Mr. Trump was withholding aid as leverage over Ukraine. When the texts were sent, news reports about the delay in releasing the aid, and about attempts by Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating Mr. Biden and other Democrats, had already prompted public speculation that Mr. Trump was engaging in a quid pro quo.

But his concerns persisted. Roughly a week earlier, on Sept. 1, Mr. Taylor had asked Mr. Sondland, “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”

Mr. Sondland replied simply, “Call me.”

The next day, Mr. Taylor described a “nightmare” situation in which the Ukrainians announced they would conduct the investigations Mr. Trump wanted and still not receive the security assistance. “The Russians love it,” he wrote of that potential outcome. “(And I quit.)”

Mr. Taylor could not be reached for comment on Thursday. The texts thrust him into the center of the blossoming controversy, and he is now almost certain to be called to testify by lawmakers.

Democrats leading the investigation said the messages “reflect serious concerns raised by a State Department official about the detrimental effects of withholding critical military assistance from Ukraine, and the importance of setting up a meeting between President Trump and the Ukrainian president without further delay.”

Republicans demanded a full transcript of Mr. Volker’s interview be released. “The facts we learned today undercut the salacious narrative that Adam Schiff is using to sell his impeachment ambitions,” wrote Representatives Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, the top Republicans on the Oversight and Reform and Intelligence committees, referring to the chairman of the intelligence panel.

When the Trump administration forced out Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former ambassador, before her term was up, Mr. Taylor was sent to be the chargé d’affaires, the No. 2 post in an embassy, and acting ambassador. Mr. Taylor was a former ambassador in Ukraine, serving from 2006 to 2009.

The texts among Mr. Volker, Mr. Sondland and Mr. Taylor portray Mr. Taylor as a diplomat deeply skeptical of the Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine, flabbergasted that the military assistance had been cut off — and firmly believing that the White House was asking for Ukraine to begin political investigations in return for the aid being released.

In one text, he worried about how the hold would affect Ukrainians’ view of the United States and if it would have “shaken their faith in us."

The texts also suggest that Mr. Volker, a former ambassador to NATO, was deeply intertwined in efforts by the president and Mr. Giuliani to press the Ukrainians into action.

Mr. Volker’s name appears several times in an anonymous C.I.A. whistle-blower complaint that set off the impeachment inquiry, and Mr. Giuliani has said publicly he briefed Mr. Volker on his efforts. The complaint centers on a July call Mr. Trump had with Mr. Zelensky, in which he pressed him to investigate Mr. Biden, and asserts that Mr. Volker advised the Ukrainians on how to “navigate” Mr. Trump’s demands.

In his session with investigators, Mr. Volker presented himself as a diplomat caught in the middle “trying to solve a problem” and help Ukraine, but as someone who was not “fully in the loop” on the president’s campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate his rivals, according to a person briefed on his testimony.

Mr. Volker told investigators that even as he agreed to set up a meeting between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Zelensky’s top aide, he warned Mr. Giuliani that he believed the conspiracy theories Mr. Giuliani was pursuing were unfounded. While there may have been Ukrainians interested in influencing the United States government, Mr. Volker told investigators that he thought it was implausible that Mr. Biden or the Hillary Clinton campaign did anything wrong.

Mr. Volker told the committee staff that he was never informed that Mr. Trump raised Mr. Biden or the 2016 election during the July 25 phone call, nor was he shown the rough transcript afterward. He was in Ukraine at the time and met the next day with Mr. Zelensky, who he said raised no concerns about the call with him.

In his testimony, Mr. Volker told investigators he believed Mr. Taylor was a diplomat of high integrity. But he also said he did not see the freezing of the assistance as directly linked to Mr. Trump’s interest in beginning a new Ukraine investigation as Mr. Taylor did, according to a person familiar with the testimony.

Mr. Taylor concluded that the assistance was linked to Mr. Trump’s desire for new investigations in Ukraine based on news reports, Mr. Volker testified, according to the person. While Mr. Taylor feared the aid would never come, Mr. Volker told House investigators he was sure that Congress or the Pentagon would force the administration to release the assistance and the issue would be resolved. Mr. Volker believed if he could persuade Mr. Trump that Mr. Zelensky was trustworthy, he could push the relationship to a better place, he said in his testimony.

Mr. Volker told the committee that he did not act at Mr. Pompeo’s behest but briefed the secretary of state who approved of his actions. He also said he kept John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, informed.

The interview, which Mr. Volker participated in voluntarily, took place out of public view. The text exchange was part of a trove of more than 60 pages of documents, many of them texts, that Mr. Volker provided before he arrived.

Mr. Volker resigned on Friday from his part-time, unpaid State Department post without public explanation. A person familiar with his thinking said the longtime diplomat concluded he could no longer be effective in the post in light of the unfolding scandal. But the resignation also freed him to appear before the House investigators without restrictions, according to people familiar with his account.

Democrats are pushing their impeachment investigation forward with haste, issuing near-daily requests or subpoenas for documentary evidence and witness testimony.

The session with Mr. Volker was the first in what is expected to be a fast-paced series of interviews in the coming weeks, when Democrats aim to bring a parade of witnesses behind closed doors for questioning. Ms. Yovanovitch is expected to appear next week.

Other State Department diplomats, including Mr. Sondland, and associates of Mr. Giuliani’s are scheduled to participate, as well, but it remains to be seen whether they will appear voluntarily. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the committee this week that its requests were inappropriately aggressive and untenable.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York, and Lara Jakes from Washington.

1 note · View note

phgq · 3 years

Text

US names Vico Sotto 'anticorruption champion'

#PHnews: US names Vico Sotto 'anticorruption champion'

MANILA – The US State Department has named Pasig City Mayor Victor "Vico" Sotto among the world's "anticorruption champions" in its International Anticorruption Champions Award, which recognizes individuals who have demonstrated leadership, courage, and impact in preventing, exposing, and combating corruption.

The award, launched under the administration of President Joe Biden, advances Washington's support of "anti-corruption leaders and innovators".

Sotto is described as "a standard-bearer for a new generation of Philippine politicians who prioritize anti-corruption and transparency initiatives in their election campaigns and in office."

Sotto in 2019 defeated an incumbent mayor whose family had governed the city of Pasig for 27 years.

The State Department said Sotto’s prior work on the city council resulted in the freedom of information legislation that allowed city residents to request documents without having to provide a justification – the first such law in the Metro Manila area.

"Sotto has sought to solidify his reputation as a fresh voice with a new, more transparent approach to governance," it said. "He pledged to avoid any kickbacks in the awarding of city contracts, established a 24/7 public information and complaints hotline, formally involved civil society organizations in the city’s budgeting and policymaking, and mandated that the value of all city government contracts be reduced by at least 10 percent – a measure intended to reduce bribery in the contract awarding process.”

Sotto, among the 12 individuals recognized by Washington, is the only Filipino on the list.

Infographics courtesy of US Embassy in Manila

The other champions named this year are:

1. Ardian Dvorani, judge and member of the Justice Appointments Council of Albania; 2. Diana Salazar, Ecuador’s attorney general; 3. Sophia Pretrick, investigative advisor for the Compliance Investigation Division of the Pohnpei State Auditor of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM); 4. Juan Francisco Sandoval Alfaro, chief of the Special Prosecutors Office Against Corruption and Impunity in Guatemala; 5. Ibrahima Kalil Gueye, Chair and co-founder of the Organization for Positive Change, an NGO focusing on good governance, peace, and education in Guinea; 6. Anjali Bhardwaj, an active member of the Right to Information Movement in India; 7. Dhuha A. Mohammed, director-general for Electronic Payments at the Central Bank of Iraq; 8. Mustafa Abdullah Sanalla, chairman of Libya’s National Oil Corporation; 9. Francis Ben Kaifala, commissioner of Sierra Leone’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC); 10. Ruslan Ryaboshapka, former prosecutor general in Ukraine; and 11. Bolot Temirov, investigative journalist and editor-in-chief of Factcheck.kg in the Kyrgyz Republic.

“The State Department continues to stand by citizens around the world calling for transparent, accountable governments. We proudly recognize these international champions of anticorruption and all those who have taken a stand against corruption,” the State Department said.

In honoring the champions, Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the 12 as “brave individuals" and commended their dedication.

“As President Biden has emphasized, our commitment to truth, transparency, and accountability is a mission that we must live at home and exemplify abroad. I commend the dedication of these 12 brave individuals to these same ideals,” he said. “They inspire us and so many of their counterparts pursuing these ideals around the world.” (PNA)

***

References:

* Philippine News Agency. "US names Vico Sotto 'anticorruption champion'." Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1131746 (accessed February 25, 2021 at 02:38AM UTC+14).

* Philippine News Agency. "US names Vico Sotto 'anticorruption champion'." Archive Today. https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1131746 (archived).

#Philippines #News #Filipino #Pinoy #Tourism #Politics #Culture #Editorial #Environment #Society #History

0 notes

political-fluffle · 4 years

Link

An audit of thousands of old case files by Ukrainian prosecutors found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hunter Biden, the former prosecutor general, who had launched the audit, told Reuters. Ruslan Ryaboshapka was in the spotlight last year as the man who would decide whether to launch an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in what became a key issue in the impeachment of President Donald Trump. (…) The audit was part of a broader reform of the prosecution service but became politically charged given some of the cases related to Burisma’s founder. “Regarding the call to Zelenskiy and this story with Burisma. I can say that there was no pressure on me,” Ryaboshapka said. “The audit was completed.” “I specifically asked prosecutors to check especially carefully those facts about Biden’s alleged involvement. They answered that there was nothing of the kind,” he added. (…)

0 notes

xtruss · 4 years

Text

Ukraine Found No Evidence Against Hunter Biden in Case Audit: Former Top Prosecutor

An audit of thousands of old case files by Ukrainian prosecutors found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hunter Biden, the former prosecutor general, who had launched the audit, told Reuters.

— Ilya Zhegulev | Reuters | June 4, 2020

KIEV , Ukraine (Reuters) - An audit of thousands of old case files by Ukrainian prosecutors found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hunter Biden, the former prosecutor general, who had launched the audit, told Reuters.

Ukraine's Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka speaks during a news conference in Kiev, Ukraine October 4, 2019. Reuters/Valentyn Ogirenko/File Photo

Ruslan Ryaboshapka was in the spotlight last year as the man who would decide whether to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in what became a key issue in the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy described Ryaboshapka as “100 percent my person” on a call in July 2019 in which Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate Biden, the man who became his main rival in the 2020 presidential race.

After taking office, Ryaboshapka in October announced an audit of old cases he inherited, including those related to the energy company Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a board member between 2014-2019.

The audit was intended to probe whether cases Ryaboshapka had inherited from his predecessors had been handled properly, given the reputation of the prosecution service as being riddled with corruption and influence-peddling.

The audit was part of a broader reform of the prosecution service but became politically charged given some of the cases related to Burisma’s founder.

“Regarding the call to Zelenskiy and this story with Burisma. I can say that there was no pressure on me,” Ryaboshapka said. “The audit was completed.”

“I specifically asked prosecutors to check especially carefully those facts about Biden’s alleged involvement. They answered that there was nothing of the kind,” he added.

Ryaboshapka was fired in March after lawmakers accused him of not moving quickly enough in prosecuting cases. Ryaboshapka said he was axed because he had started bringing real reform to the prosecution service for the first time in a way that threatened the interests of corrupt politicians.

Trump was impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction in the Democratic-led House of Representatives after he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate.

Hunter Biden’s activities at Burisma have also been the target of scrutiny by a U.S. Senate committee.

Unwittingly caught up in the impeachment row last year, Zelenskiy has said Ukrainians are “tired” of the issue and does not want Ukraine being dragged into the 2020 presidential race.

— Writing by Matthias Williams; Editing by Frances Kerry

0 notes

khalilhumam · 4 years

Text

Zelenskiy’s first year: New beginning or false dawn?

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/zelenskiys-first-year-new-beginning-or-false-dawn/

Zelenskiy’s first year: New beginning or false dawn?

By Steven Pifer There were high hopes for Ukraine’s prospects to develop into a successful, democratic and economically prosperous state when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Unfortunately, the country has experienced a series of false starts and missed opportunities over the past three decades. Volodymyr Zelenskiy became independent Ukraine’s sixth president on May 20, 2019, bringing renewed hopes for dramatic change that would enable Ukraine to realize its full potential, despite the conflict with Russia. One year later, however, it is not clear whether his presidency will prove transformational or just another false start. Ukraine had many attributes for success when it regained independence in 1991, including an educated work force, some of the best agricultural land on the planet, key industries, and proximity to a reforming Central Europe. It has failed to realize that success. To be sure, democracy in the form of free, fair and competitive elections has taken hold. But reform has lagged in other areas. In 1994, President Leonid Kuchma launched a burst of economic reform, but it faded within a year. In 2000, Kuchma’s appointment of Viktor Yushchenko as prime minister raised reform expectations, but the presidential administration began undercutting Yushchenko in the summer, and he was out in 2001. Following the 2004 Orange Revolution, Yushchenko became president and twice appointed Yuliya Tymoshenko as prime minister. She had proven the most effective minister in Yushchenko’s cabinet in 2000. However, the two never got on the same track, and Ukraine missed another opportunity. After the 2013-14 Revolution of Dignity, President Petro Poroshenko posted a good reform record for the first two years of his presidency, but the pace fell off dramatically in 2016. His failure to deal with corruption and get the economy going resulted in his electoral rout in 2019. Zelenskiy, a political novice, won the April 2019 run-off election with 73 percent of the vote. He took office promising the real fight against corruption that so many Ukrainians wanted. In July 2019, his political party, Servant of the People, won a majority of seats in the Ukrainian parliament. This was the first time any Ukrainian president’s party had commanded a clear majority without the need for coalition partners. Parliament approved Zelenskiy’s choice for prime minister, Oleksiy Honcharuk, and his cabinet. Most regarded the cabinet as honest and pro-reform, albeit young and relatively inexperienced. The new cabinet set ambitious reform goals. The choice of Ruslan Ryaboshapka as prosecutor general, a position abused by previous presidents to advance political agendas, won plaudits from civil society and anti-corruption activists. Ryaboshapka immediately began cleaning house in the prosecutor general’s office. In what was termed a “turbo regime,” parliament began churning out legislation last fall, including an end to immunity for parliamentary deputies and a law laying out a mechanism for presidential impeachment. Not all was great. Critics asserted that some laws were ill-prepared in the rush. Meanwhile, factions began to develop within the Servant of the People party that would soon undercut its majority. A full year after Zelenskiy became president, the picture is mixed. On the plus side, Zelenskiy personally appears honest and has not profited from his office, something that cannot be said about his predecessors. The nature of his relationship with oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskiy, who owns the television channel that broadcast Zelenskiy’s comedy show, posed a major question mark last summer. Zelenskiy now seems to have answered that by breaking dramatically with Kolomoiskiy over newly-passed banking legislation. On May 13, the Ukrainian parliament approved banking legislation which will block nationalized banks from being returned to former owners. Referred to as the “Anti-Kolomoiskiy Law,” it should frustrate the oligarch’s bid to regain control over (or compensation for) Privatbank, nationalized in 2016 after an audit revealed some $5.5 billion in missing monies. This vote came weeks after MPs passed an agricultural land reform law that will allow Ukrainians to buy farmland, ending a two decades-long moratorium on such sales. While both laws constitute victories for Ukraine’s reform agenda, getting them through the country’s parliament took longer and proved more difficult than initially anticipated. In the end, defections within Zelenskiy’s own party meant that the Servant of the People faction could not deliver a majority by itself. Instead, the legislation needed supporting votes from two other parties. The International Monetary Fund had made these two pieces of legislation conditions for a new program of low interest credits for Ukraine. With COVID-19 sweeping into the country and playing havoc with the Ukrainian economy, Kyiv’s need for IMF credits seemed a key motivating factor for their passage. (One would like to think that Zelenskiy and his MPs would have backed these laws in any case; too many of Ukraine’s reforms over the past 25 years have come about because of the need for an IMF program and credits.) Other actions in spring 2020 have raised questions about Zelenskiy’s commitment to reform. He fired Honcharuk and reshuffled much of the cabinet in early March, just six months after the initial appointment of the government. Ryaboshapka stepped down after a parliamentary vote of no confidence and was replaced by a Zelenskiy friend with no prosecutorial experience, raising concerns about the politicization of the prosecutor general’s office. The new cabinet lacks the reform credentials of its predecessor, and members of the old guard have returned to positions of power. The cabinet has yet to make clear whether and how hard it will press for change. Other reform efforts have languished. Security sector reform, which has long been called for by both Ukrainian reformers and the country’s friends in the West, has gone nowhere. The leadership of the Security Service of Ukraine appointed by Zelenskiy sees no reason for change. Little has been done with the judicial branch, where corrupt judges have a reputation for selling decisions. Recently, developments have taken a potentially more ominous turn. As reported by Melinda Haring and Victor Tregubov, dismissed reformers have found themselves under investigation. Ryaboshapka, who reportedly lost favor with Zelenskiy’s team for not prosecuting Poroshenko, now faces criminal proceedings on unspecified charges. Maksym Nefyodov, a reformer who was fired as head of the Customs Service in April, faces a pretrial investigation. Serhiy Verlanov, dismissed as head of the Tax Service, had his apartment searched by security officials. And Artem Sytnyk, head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, is under attack from other government law enforcement agencies. After just one year in office, it is too early to deliver any definitive judgments on the Zelenskiy presidency. He can still become a transformational figure, but he will have to do better. Zelenskiy should now ask himself: how many chances can Ukraine afford to pass up? If Zelenskiy, like many of his predecessors, adopts reforms merely to meet IMF conditions, he will miss the opportunity to unleash the country’s economic potential. Investors who could help boost growth will continue to sit on the sidelines waiting for real change, as they have largely done for the past 25 years. Investigations targeting dismissed reformers will not go down well in the West (reference former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych’s bogus trial and jailing of his political rival Yulia Tymoshenko). This, along with any perception of a lack of reform commitment, could help feed a sense of Ukraine fatigue in Europe, just as countries such as Hungary and Italy seek a return to business as usual with Moscow. Zelenskiy should consider how the approval ratings of his predecessors Yushchenko and Poroshenko plummeted when they failed to meet the reform expectations that brought them to the presidency. He still has time to justify the high hopes generated in spring 2019. If, however, his election turns out to be just another false start, he will most likely become another one-term Ukrainian president.

0 notes

cnbnews · 4 years

Link

乌克兰总理贡恰鲁克于3月3日提交辞呈，图中为乌克兰总理贡恰鲁克（AP图片）。

【希望之声2020年3月3日】（希望之声记者宇宁综合编译）乌克兰执政党人民公仆党3月3日宣布，由于政府重组，该国总理贡恰鲁克（Oleksiy Honcharuk）已经请辞，该国的财政部长、外交部长和总检察长可能也会随后辞职。

据路透社报道，乌克兰总统泽连斯基（Volodymyr Zelenskiy）任命副总理史密加尔（Denys Shmygal）代替了贡恰鲁克。

贡恰鲁克和乌克兰财政部长Oksana Markarova办公室未对此置评。

泽连斯基是一位演员，并没有任何从政经验，他去年大选获胜是承诺会打击该国的腐败，实施改革政策并遏制寡头政治对该国的影响。但是最近的民调显示，由于乌克兰政府在结束乌克兰东部内战方面的进展甚微，民众对他的支持率已经在下降。

报导还表示，接替贡恰鲁克的史密加尔曾经在乌克兰最大的能源集团DTEK工作。

泽连斯基可能会还任命乌克兰前总理季莫申科政府时期的代理财政部长Ihor Umansky 出任乌克兰的财政部长，随后乌克兰议会可能会对乌克兰总检察长Ruslan Ryaboshapka进行不信任表决，迫使他下台。

今年1月份，有外泄的录音显示，贡恰鲁克对泽连斯基发表了有损于泽连斯基形象的言论，虽然当时泽连斯基拒绝接受贡恰鲁克的辞呈，并表示他会给贡恰鲁克第二次机会，但是贡恰鲁克仍然于3日宣布辞职。

报导表示，为了赢得国际货币贸易组织的新贷款，乌克兰政府正准备推动一项银行破产法律，此法律将禁止将乌克兰最大的放贷方PrivatBank 返还给其业主Ihor Kolomoisky，乌克兰政府于2016年将该银行收归为国有。这笔贷款对于乌克兰的经济稳定和投资者信心至关重要。

本文章或节目经希望之声编辑制作，转载请注明希望之声并包含原文标题及链接。

乌克兰沦陷见首例确诊患者曾去过义大利

乌克兰失守到访过意大利的一男子成乌首例感染武汉肺炎病患

职位摇摇欲坠传乌克兰总理2度提辞呈

宝胜视频集锦：直击中国疫情：为临沂监狱祷告、乌克兰美女在武汉被封、一些村镇解封、雷神山建筑工人要求隔离等

缓解恐慌乌克兰卫生部长自愿与撤离湖北侨民同隔离

安卓翻墙-禁闻浏览器、Windows翻墙:ChromeGo AD：搬瓦工官方翻墙服务Just My Socks，不怕被墙

原文链接：乌克兰政府重组总理辞职

原文链接：乌克兰政府重组总理辞职 - 新闻评论

本文标签：乌克兰, 希望之声, 总检察长, 总理, 政府, 检察长, 财政部, 财政部长, 重组

#禁闻

0 notes

therealtruthalways · 4 years

Text

0 notes

go-redgirl · 4 years

Text

Hunter Biden May Have To Pay Back The Millions He Made, Which Were stolen ... Daily Torch ^ | November 26, 2019 | Bill Wilson

The one, overriding impression that Democrats, media and the left have left on many Americans after two weeks of the “impeachment” circus” is not what they intended. They have left the unmistakable impression of fear; near-panic levels of terror. And from what is now seeping out, they have every reason to feel this way.

You see, their con-game is about to be exposed. The merciless corruption and venal disregard for the American people that has become their entire operating model is on the verge of being dragged through the streets for all to see and ridicule.

At every turn, the true matter before the nation is becoming more and more obvious – the deep and systemic corruption that the Obama administration imposed on America, the disdain of the American people by the globalist elite, and the desperation to hide the facts from the public even at the cost of the legitimacy America’s most central institutions.

The list is long. From the vile action of the communist-supporting John Brennan of Obama’s CIA to the likely criminal “leadership” of the FBI under Comey, to the globalist hit-squad at the State Department, the picture is one of arrogant disregard for the law, an almost adolescent rebellion against the nation that has given them so much. And while the list of violators is long, it is fitting that the crux of the current debate starts with the outright, open corruption of the Biden family, especially Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden is the essence of the modern leftist movement; self-important, narcissistic to the extreme and greedy beyond words. Once the Democrats and their quislings inside the bureaucracy learned that the President was looking into the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, accused of stealing from the Ukrainian government during the Viktor Yanukovych administration, that had funneled millions to Hunter Biden, they knew they had to double down. And in classic fashion, Democrats and the left have engaged in an orgy of casting accusations against other people of their own worst crimes.

Hunter Biden could owe the millions he made in Ukraine from Burisma back to the people of Ukraine as a part of an asset recovery process under U.S. law. Under 22 U.S.C. Section 8904(a): “The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall assist, on an expedited basis as appropriate, the Government of Ukraine to identify, secure, and recover assets linked to acts of corruption by Viktor Yanukovych, members of his family, or other former or current officials of the Government of Ukraine or their accomplices in any jurisdiction through appropriate programs, including the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative of the Department of Justice.”

And now we know the new Ukrainian Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka has expanded his office looking at the theft by Burisma and the company’s head, Mykola Zlochevsky, of stealing $33 million from the country’s central bank. The monies are all fungible, so it is likely Biden profited from this alleged theft while at Burisma, even if it was years later. It looks like he was hired to keep this investigation from happening, so giving the money back is the least the younger Biden could do.

Were it just using the office of the Vice-President to protect his son’s highly questionable “business dealings,” it would have been bad enough. But now we learn that Hunter and another scion of the elite were neck deep in the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) program, as Rosemont Capital benefitted from the program to the tune of $130 million.

TALF is the very definition of corporatist theft, a scheme hatched in the early days of the Obama regime that funneled tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to favored actors of the political class.

The scam worked like this. A group of “approved” investors went to failing banks and bought asset-based securities. The “investors” would put up as little as 5 percent of the purchase price while the Federal Reserve — the taxpayers — paid the rest. But over the course of the term of the security, 100 percent of the payments went to the investors, nothing to the public. And when the deals failed — when the income did not support repayment of the loan, the investors were allowed to just walk away, pay nothing!

It was a license to loot. And ole Hunter was in on the deal from Day One. “This is a great example of the suspicion of many Americans that these bailouts were used to benefit connected insiders while ordinary Americans went broke,” said Tom Anderson, director of the Government Integrity Project at the National Legal and Policy Center, an organization that was critical of TALF at the time.

The establishment powers that be do not want the American people to get a clear view of the depth of corruption that has infected our nation — under both Democrat and Republican administrations. That is what the impeachment scam is all about – a massive cover-up of a system that is in free-fall.

Love him or hate him, nobody can deny that the great contribution of Donald Trump has been — and God willing will continue to be — the exposure of this venality. Hunter Biden should be made to pay back any money he got from Rosemont that depended on U.S. taxpayers, and any money he got from Burisma, which was stolen from the people of Ukraine.

As the circus continues into the next act, everyone should remember that none of this is about Donald Trump. This is an excise of self-loathing by a corrupt establishment best exemplified by the Biden mob.

__________________________________________________________

OPINON: Former President Obama knew exactly what was going on with Joe Biden and he stood by and did nothing. Obama is just as guilty as Joe Biden and his Son.

So, if you want to know whats in a name or say that Biden has the name. Well Biden has a ‘crooked’ name, thats what it really means for his name.

Don’t ever trust anyone just because of their name, unless its an honorable name and Joe Biden is not an honorable human-being. He’s a crook just like all the Democrats putting up a ‘smoke-screen’ trying to fool the people in this Country.

But, the good news is, the Citizens in this country is on too their ‘tricks’ like never before!

1 note · View note

opedguy · 4 years

Text

Ukraine Upends House Impeachment Hearings

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Nov. 20., 2019.--Just as House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) hoped to land a knockout punch on 73-year-old President Donald Trump with explosive testimony by 62-year-old European Union Amb. Gordon Sondland, Ukraine announced a new investigation into Burisma Holdings. Democrats blame Trump for trying to bribe 40-year-old Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky in his July 25 phone call, serving as the basis for today’s impeachment hearings. Democrats contend that Trump tried to get Zelensky to dig up dirt on Democrat former VP Joe Biden and his 50-year-old son, Hunter. Insisting that Trump engaged Zelensky in a quid pro quo, $400 million in military aid in exchange for dirt on the Bidens, Democrats hoped to seal their impeachment case against Trump. Sondland was asked many times about the connection between Burisma Holdings and the Bidens.

What’s known for sure is that Hunter Biden made millions as a Burisma Holdings board member from 2014 to 2019. It’s also known that his father, Joe, a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate, got Hunter on Burisma’s board while he was former President Barack Obama’s Vice President. Joe was supposed to run an anti-corruption task force for Obama when he landed Hunter his $150,000 a month job. House Democrats impeaching Trump insist that Trump abused his office to gain dirt on a political opponent in the 2020 election. House Democrats’ Atty. Daniel Goldman insisted to Sondland that he knew that any mention of Burisma meant the Bidens. When Sondland said he didn’t make the connection, Goldman sounded incredulous, insisting that he must have known. Announcing today that it’s looking into Burisma holdings, Ukraine undermines the Dem’s case against Trump.

Trump insisted all along that the reason any military funds were held from Ukraine had to do with investigating corruption, not dredging up dirt on the Bidens. Yet Democrats can’t have it both ways: Hammering Trump for seeking information on the Bidens while denying the Biden’s engage in corruption. Chief Ukrainian prosecutor Kostantyn Kulyk announced that he’d look into corruption at Burisma Holdings, the same board Hunter took his lucrative job. Chief Ukrainian prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka launched a new investigation into Burisma Holdings, accusing it founder Mykola Zlochevsky to stealing money from Ukraine’s Central Bank. It was Joe Biden who boasted to the Council on Foreign Relations Sept. 27, 2019 that he got Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired for daring to investigate Burisma where his son, Hunter, worked on the board.

Democrats can’t have it both ways: Insisting Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, while, at the same time, going after Trump for looking into corruption. Democrats built their impeachment case against Trump insisting he asked a foreign government to investigate a U.S. presidential candidate. Trump said all along he was concerned about Ukrainian corruption, especially given that Joe Biden boasted about getting the former Ukrainian prosecutor fired. Ryaboshapka is now looking into Zlochvesky’s tax evasion, money laundering and illegal licenses. Democrats prosecuting the impeachment case against Trump have completely ignored the very real possibility that Joe and Hunter were involved in Ukrainian corruption. Ukraine’s prior prosecutor Kulyk, the one after Shokin, suspected that Zlochevsky embezzled $33 million [600 million hryvnias] from Ukraine’s Central Bank.

Listening to the impeachment hearings, you’d think that Ukraine had no problem with corruption, only Trump’sj obsession to dig up dirt on the Bidens. Whether Democrats admit it or not, it’s reasonable to ask Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky about past corruption, especially when it involves Hunter Biden. Paying him millions to sit on Burisma’s board, when the company was under scrutiny, shows the exten to Zlochevsky corruption. “Theft of government funds on an especially large scale,” Ryaboshapka said. House Democrats can point fingers at Trump all they want but eventually they’ll have to turn attention to the Bidens. Ukrainian authorities confirmed the investigation of Burisma’s on hold because Zlochevsky as flown-the-coop. Kulyk told Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani that Joe Biden, while Vice President, tried to get his predecessor Shokin fired for looking into Burisma.

House Democrats currently prosecuting an impeachment case against Trump based on his July 25 conversation with Zelensky completely ignore the extent of Ukrainian corruption. Trump wanted to find out more about any U.S. role in Ukranian corruption, something Democrats contend was done for selfish political purposes. But if you look at Ryaboshapka’s corruption probe, it shows that Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky was involved in embezzling state funds. Whatever cash Hunter Biden got paid, he may have not been illegal but certainly raises ethical questions. How did a former U.S. Vice President persuade a Cyrus-based Ukrainian natural gas company to hire his 50-year-old son Hunter for $150,000 a month? Whether it’s possible to get to the bottom of Ukrainian corruption or not, House Democrats can’t ignore completely any role played by Joe and Hunter.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

0 notes

plusorminuscongress · 4 years

Text

New story in Politics from Time: Ukraine Wants To Probe the Company That Paid Hunter Biden. But It’s ‘Too Sensitive’

One of the troubling questions at the center of the impeachment inquiry, at least for Republicans, has been the work that Hunter Biden did for Burisma, one of Ukraine’s largest gas companies, while his father was serving as Vice President. But the intensity of interest in Washington is only making it more difficult to resolve the mystery.

To this day, Burisma’s connection to Hunter Biden has made it much harder for Ukrainian authorities to investigate the company for corruption, current and former officials in Ukraine tell TIME. In that sense, Burisma is still getting its money’s worth for the reported $50,000 per month it paid the younger Biden to sit on its board from 2014 until earlier this year.

Ukraine’s government insists that it has no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father. But Burisma, they say, is a different story. Since taking office in May, the government has sought to explore past claims of corruption against Burisma and its owners. Yet, as an unintended consequence of the impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has felt the need to treat the company with kid gloves.

“It’s too sensitive a topic,” says an official in Kyiv, who would only discuss the company’s case on condition of anonymity. “I think that we need to investigate Burisma. Not for Trump. And not against Biden. We need to do that because this is just a case of corruption,” says the official, who is familiar with the thinking of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But the impeachment inquiry has “changed the context” around alleged corruption at Burisma, adds the official. “And this is bad.”

The case of Burisma cuts to the heart of the Republican defense of Trump. The President and his allies have insisted that the Bidens acted corruptly to shield the company from prosecution in Ukraine. The former Vice President, his son and their supporters have strenuously denied these allegations, and there is no evidence that Joe Biden’s decisions were ever influenced by his son’s involvement with Burisma. But the treatment of that company in Ukraine suggests that the role of Hunter Biden continues to affect the handling the company’s case, prompting the new government of President Zelensky to weigh its approach to fighting graft with particular care, especially when it comes to the country’s notoriously corrupt gas sector.

“We don’t know how major players in the United States would turn any statement” on the issue of corruption, says Bohdan Yaremenko, a senior lawmaker in the ruling party of President Zelensky. “If we would try to make an emphasis on this issue right now, we would sound like we are trying to contradict President Trump and Republicans,”

The sensitivity around Burisma also came up during impeachment hearings this week. In his testimony on Tuesday, Kurt Volker, the Trump Administration’s former special representative in Ukraine, said he urged the Ukrainian government not to give Burisma any special treatment because of its connection to Hunter Biden. “What I was trying to do in working with the Ukrainians was to thread a needle,” Volker testified. He encouraged the government to investigate corruption at Burisma without getting tangled up in Trump’s allegations of corruption against Joe Biden and his son. “If there was a way to thread that needle, I thought it was worth the effort.”

Ukraine is still trying to thread that needle, and having a very hard time of it.

Since taking office this summer, the government’s new prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, has initiated a wide-ranging review of many old corruption cases, looking for signs that they were closed under suspicious circumstances. He has also forced prosecutors to undergo a series of examinations meant to test their competence and integrity. “There were many, many cases which were buried by my predecessors,” Ryaboshapka said in an interview on Nov. 13 with the Kyiv Post.

But Ryaboshapka’s statements have reflected the tension involved in reopening of Burisma. In the Kyiv Post interview, the prosecutor general said that some of these cases being reviewed involved the co-founder of Burisma, a former Ecology Minister named Mykola Zlochevsky. In a separate interview on Nov. 5, however, the prosecutor general said there is no case against Burisma: “It exists only in the mind of the person who made it up.”

In a ranking of Ukraine’s wealthiest oligarchs put out last month by Novoye Vremya, a popular weekly, Zlochevsky was in tenth place, with an estimated fortune of $686 million, up 8% in the past year.

Burisma and its founder have come up repeatedly during the House impeachment inquiry. During his testimony on Nov. 13, George Kent, the official who oversees Ukraine policy at the State Department, alleged that Zlochevsky had been involved in “self-dealing” during his tenure as ecology minister between 2010 and 2012. “He used his regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to companies that he himself controlled,” Kent told the inquiry. “That would be considered an act of corruption in my view, yes.”

Zlochevsky has denied accusations of corruption and self-dealing. He did not respond to requests for comment sent to him through his company this week. The office of the general prosecutor declined to make Ryaboshapka available for an interview, citing his busy schedule.

During a press conference in Kyiv on Wednesday, Ryaboshapka told reporters that there are more than a dozen criminal cases in Ukraine that involve Zlochevsky or his company. They will all be reviewed in due course, he added.

Ignoring them is not much of an option for Ukraine. “We cannot not investigate it just because it will benefit Trump or hurt Biden,” says the official. He believes, “It’s a case of corruption,” he says, but given how radioactive the Burisma case has become in Washington, the government is not eager to pursue it in the midst of the U.S. presidential race. “We can do it after the elections,” the official tells TIME. That might be one way to thread Volker’s needle.

By Simon Shuster / Kyiv on November 20, 2019 at 11:49AM

#Time #politics #PlusOrMinusCongress #±Congress #Indega±#IndegaPlusOrMinus #TimeMag #TimeMagazine

0 notes