The evidence of Biden corruption
...
Let’s first distinguish evidence we have for public consumption, but would likely not be offered in any impeachment or criminal trial. A tested, verified confidential human source has revealed that Burisma’s Mykola Zlochevsky admitted to being forced — that is, extorted — to bribe Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each to fire anti-Burisma Prosecutor Viktor Shokin. According to this reliable source, Zlochevsky claimed to have made recordings of both Hunter and Joe. While an impeachment trial is highly unlikely at this late date in Biden’s term, is this evidence dependable for purposes of public opinion? Certainly.
Of course, much more is clearly shown through available witnesses and records. Let’s start with widely known circumstantial evidence.
Hunter and Joe were both on several lengthy Air Force Two trips to corrupt foreign countries. If Biden was, as his supporters protest, not involved with Hunter’s business, wouldn’t he have been a tiny bit curious as to why Hunter’s business interests, whatever they may be, were taking him to the same dens of corruption where Joe was the American “point man?” It is impossible to believe, even without any emails or pictures, that Joe would not know that Hunter’s business was selling Joe’s influence, since this is the only value that Hunter had to offer in these countries. Biden’s likely awareness is cemented by a multi-hour White House meeting between Joe and Hunter’s partner Devon Archer in April 2014, as Archer and Hunter were pitching the corrupt Burisma for lucrative retentions. Of course Joe knew their business. The bigger question is whether Joe had recruited Hunter to be his bag man, as opposed to Hunter dragging his dad along, wittingly or otherwise. Why would Joe spend his valuable time with Archer if not seeking advantage?
Has there been evidence that Joe was working with Hunter? Yes. The final leg of this proof is the twenty-plus speakerphone confabs with Hunter and his clients. While one would expect no direct corrupt talk at such conferences, what was important about these calls was Joe’s demonstration that he was at Hunter’s beck and call. These calls, in short, were proof to clients that Hunter could deliver his dad. The purpose of the confabs was obvious: they were marketing calls.
But how can we say that in fact Joe delivered for Hunter’s corrupt clients? That question is nailed down by the impulsive Vice President’s direct admission that he extorted, by withholding foreign aid, the firing of Ukraine Prosecutor Viktor Shokin, after Shokin had raided Zlochevsky’s home. While most know of this firing, few media accounts have followed its sequelae. Several cases against Burisma, worth hundreds of millions of dollars in potential recoveries for Ukraine, were quietly settled for the nominal sum of $7 million after the cases were reassigned from the Prosecutor’s office to NaBu, a newly formed, supposed anti-corruption entity. NaBu (the National Anti-Corruption Bureau) was advised by a delegate from James Comey’s FBI. Was there any connection here to Joe Biden? Not unless Comey was a sneaky partisan — which, come to think of it, he was.
Of course, there is other dramatic evidence. After UK authorities seized $23 million embezzled from Burisma by Zlochevsky on its way to Cyprus in 2014, all that the British Magistrate needed was a statement from the Ukraine Prosecutor’s office that the money needed to be returned. To the Court’s frustration, no one from Ukraine sent that message, amid reports of fear of Biden’s wrath.
Meanwhile, another Hunter client, Igor Kolomoisky, of PrivatBank as well as Burisma, looted PrivatBank for approximately $5.6 billion, most to be reflated by foreign aid, including $1.8 billion of direct theft by Kolomoisky shell companies directed to their accounts in Cyprus.
...
There is much more.
I think the current evidence is adequate to accuse Biden of soliciting bribes. If you wanted to gather more evidence you could put a team of accountants and lawyers together to follow the flow of funds. Biden clearly tried to hide the money as it was coming in and subsequently being distributed to family members but I suspect that the investigators armed with subpoenas could trace the money.
Comments
Post a Comment