Joe Biden Impeachment Inquiry

[GaryK]

McCarthy orders impeachment inquiry into President Biden

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker ... =103114626

[GaryK]

Despite Biden’s claim, Europeans WEREN’T trying to oust Ukraine prosecutor targeting Hunter’s firm

https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/despite-b ... sitebutton

[Szdfan]

Form the article in the OP

"Today, I am directing our House committee to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden," McCarthy said at the U.S. Capitol in a short formal statement. He did not take questions from reporters.

McCarthy previously indicated there would be a full House vote for an impeachment inquiry, as has happened in the past, but as of Tuesday he didn't appear to have the votes to open one. A spokesperson for McCarthy tells ABC News that McCarthy is not expected to hold a vote to launch the impeachment inquiry Tuesday.

So he's not holding a vote because he doesn't have the votes in the House to do it.

[Ken]

Despite Biden’s claim, Europeans WEREN’T trying to oust Ukraine prosecutor targeting Hunter’s firm

https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/despite-b ... sitebutton

I don't know who Miranda DeVine is. She seems to be some sort of right-wing columnist from Australia. But she is clearly wrong on this count. There was plenty of contemporary reporting at the time back in 2015 and 2016 about European and American efforts to oust Shokin. We don't have to wonder about it. For example, this is from the New York Times in March 2016 so long before this issue was connected to Biden: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/worl ... cutor.html

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption.

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

From the Irish Times, March 2016: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/e ... -1.2591190

EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin

The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine's scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country's political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

Ukraine's parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor's office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft.

"This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general's office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust," said Jan Tombinski, the EU's envoy to Ukraine.

“There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases . . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added.

Mr Tombinski said the EU was also concerned about the resignation or dismissal of several “reform-oriented” prosecutors and reports that Mr Shokin’s office was investigating a “highly-respected” anti-corruption group – an obvious reference to Kiev’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre, which had fiercely criticised Mr Shokin.

In what appeared to be his last act before dismissal, Mr Shokin sacked his deputy, Davit Sakvarelidze, who had repeatedly called for his boss to be fired.

From the Financial Times: European Envoys pushed Ukraine to fire Shokin months before Biden: https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61 ... 5a370481bc

Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden

European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said. 

From the Guardian in February 2016: International Monetary Fund demands Shokin and corruption be eliminated or the next $40 Billion aid package will be jeopardized: https://www.ft.com/content/44c1641e-cff ... f7778e7377

IMF warning sparks Ukraine pledge on corruption and reform

Ukraine has pledged to do more to fight corruption and reform state companies after the International Monetary Fund issued a blunt warning that it risked losing billions in financial support as a result of stalling reforms.

Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, said on Wednesday that Ukraine needed to make a “substantial new effort” to invigorate reforms, warning that without such a push “it is hard to see how [a $40bn IMF-led rescue of the economy] can continue and be successful”.

Analysts said Ms Lagarde’s threat appeared to signal that the fund was looking for a widescale government shake-up to breathe life into the reform process.

“The message is that the international community demand[s] real and meaningful change as the price of continuing to write the cheques,” said Tim Ash, a long-time Ukraine watcher at Nomura.

“Poroshenko will have to come up with something very meaningful in terms of cabinet changes and perhaps even a change in the much-criticised public prosecutor’s office to regain credibility,” he said.

The president has come under pressure at home and internationally for refusing to replace a long-time loyalist, Viktor Shokin, as chief prosecutor. Mr Shokin has been criticised for failing to bring to justice any of the snipers who killed dozens of protesters in central Kiev in the final days of the revolution, and for dragging his feet over investigating senior officials and businesspeople.

Taras Kuzio, a Ukrainian political analyst, tweeted that “the crunch is coming for President Poroshenko who has to choose between finally supporting anti-corruption efforts or losing IMF money”.

[GaryK]

Despite Biden’s claim, Europeans WEREN’T trying to oust Ukraine prosecutor targeting Hunter’s firm

https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/despite-b ... sitebutton

I don't know who Miranda DeVine is. She seems to be some sort of right-wing columnist from Australia. But she is clearly wrong on this count. There was plenty of contemporary reporting at the time back in 2015 and 2016 about European and American efforts to oust Shokin. We don't have to wonder about it.

Here is the European Union report she is referencing. It doesn't directly reference Shokin, but it does appear to be praising the progress Ukraine was making in fighting corruption. Edited to add that it does reference Shokin.

On 30 November, the General
Prosecutor appointed the head of the specialised anti-corruption prosecution.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... zation.pdf

And here is a US Task force report saying pretty much the same thing.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... eeMemo.pdf

[Ken]

https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/despite-b ... sitebutton

I don't know who Miranda DeVine is. She seems to be some sort of right-wing columnist from Australia. But she is clearly wrong on this count. There was plenty of contemporary reporting at the time back in 2015 and 2016 about European and American efforts to oust Shokin. We don't have to wonder about it.

Here is the European Union report she is referencing. It doesn't directly reference Shokin, but it does appear to be praising the progress Ukraine was making in fighting corruption.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... zation.pdf

And here is a US Task force report saying pretty much the same thing.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... eeMemo.pdf

From what I have been able to discern:

1. The EU, the IMF, and individual European countries were most definitely concerned about the culture of corruption in Ukraine because they were dumping billions of aid into Ukraine and didn't want to see it vanish into a sea of unproductive corruption.

2. Ukraine at that time was rife with corruption from the top to the bottom. In fact the previous president Viktor Yanukovych probably set world records for corruption rivaled only by some African heads of state.

3. Shokin was more or less a minor player in all of this, criticized not so much for being utterly corrupt himself, but for turning a blind eye and not going after the rampant corruption that his office was supposed to be investigating. His office was actually investigating anti-corruption groups more than the corrupt industries and politicians that he was supposed to be investigating. And some of his officials were found to be highly corrupt with huge stashes of money, although not so much Shokin himself from what I have read. He didn't seem to have accumulated his own personal fortune.

4. The EU, IMF, and US wanted Shokin gone because they saw him as the biggest obstacle to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine because it was his office that was supposed to be doing it and he wasn't getting the job done. But the larger objective talked about more was fighting corruption in Ukraine. Shokin was just one aspect of a larger push by the west to get Ukraine to clean up its act. So he doesn't necessarily get huge press back in 2016 since he was more of a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

[GaryK]

I don't know who Miranda DeVine is. She seems to be some sort of right-wing columnist from Australia. But she is clearly wrong on this count. There was plenty of contemporary reporting at the time back in 2015 and 2016 about European and American efforts to oust Shokin. We don't have to wonder about it.

Here is the European Union report she is referencing. It doesn't directly reference Shokin, but it does appear to be praising the progress Ukraine was making in fighting corruption.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... zation.pdf

And here is a US Task force report saying pretty much the same thing.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... eeMemo.pdf

From what I have been able to discern:

1. The EU, the IMF, and individual European countries were most definitely concerned about the culture of corruption in Ukraine because they were dumping billions of aid into Ukraine and didn't want to see it vanish into a sea of unproductive corruption.

2. Ukraine at that time was rife with corruption from the top to the bottom. In fact the previous president Viktor Yanukovych probably set world records for corruption rivaled only by some African heads of state.

3. Shokin was more or less a minor player in all of this, criticized not so much for being utterly corrupt himself, but for turning a blind eye and not going after the rampant corruption that his office was supposed to be investigating. His office was actually investigating anti-corruption groups more than the corrupt industries and politicians that he was supposed to be investigating. And some of his officials were found to be highly corrupt with huge stashes of money, although not so much Shokin himself from what I have read. He didn't seem to have accumulated his own personal fortune.

4. The EU, IMF, and US wanted Shokin gone because they saw him as the biggest obstacle to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine because it was his office that was supposed to be doing it and he wasn't getting the job done. But the larger objective talked about more was fighting corruption in Ukraine. Shokin was just one aspect of a larger push by the west to get Ukraine to clean up its act. So he doesn't necessarily get huge press back in 2016 since he was more of a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

And yet the European Union report clearly states...

Based on these commitments, the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been
achieved.

[Ken]

Here is the European Union report she is referencing. It doesn't directly reference Shokin, but it does appear to be praising the progress Ukraine was making in fighting corruption.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... zation.pdf

And here is a US Task force report saying pretty much the same thing.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... eeMemo.pdf

From what I have been able to discern:

1. The EU, the IMF, and individual European countries were most definitely concerned about the culture of corruption in Ukraine because they were dumping billions of aid into Ukraine and didn't want to see it vanish into a sea of unproductive corruption.

2. Ukraine at that time was rife with corruption from the top to the bottom. In fact the previous president Viktor Yanukovych probably set world records for corruption rivaled only by some African heads of state.

3. Shokin was more or less a minor player in all of this, criticized not so much for being utterly corrupt himself, but for turning a blind eye and not going after the rampant corruption that his office was supposed to be investigating. His office was actually investigating anti-corruption groups more than the corrupt industries and politicians that he was supposed to be investigating. And some of his officials were found to be highly corrupt with huge stashes of money, although not so much Shokin himself from what I have read. He didn't seem to have accumulated his own personal fortune.

4. The EU, IMF, and US wanted Shokin gone because they saw him as the biggest obstacle to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine because it was his office that was supposed to be doing it and he wasn't getting the job done. But the larger objective talked about more was fighting corruption in Ukraine. Shokin was just one aspect of a larger push by the west to get Ukraine to clean up its act. So he doesn't necessarily get huge press back in 2016 since he was more of a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

And yet the European Union report clearly states...

Based on these commitments, the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been
achieved.

They had to make that determination to release the next batch of IMF funding.

[Robert]

McCarthy Announces He Has Greenlit A Probe To Examine The Possibility Of Investigating Preliminary Meetings Into Whether Or Not They Should Begin To Consider The Future Likelihood Of Hypothetical Impeachment Hearings Sometime Later Down The Road
·
Sep 12, 2023 · BabylonBee.com

[GaryK]

From what I have been able to discern:

1. The EU, the IMF, and individual European countries were most definitely concerned about the culture of corruption in Ukraine because they were dumping billions of aid into Ukraine and didn't want to see it vanish into a sea of unproductive corruption.

2. Ukraine at that time was rife with corruption from the top to the bottom. In fact the previous president Viktor Yanukovych probably set world records for corruption rivaled only by some African heads of state.

3. Shokin was more or less a minor player in all of this, criticized not so much for being utterly corrupt himself, but for turning a blind eye and not going after the rampant corruption that his office was supposed to be investigating. His office was actually investigating anti-corruption groups more than the corrupt industries and politicians that he was supposed to be investigating. And some of his officials were found to be highly corrupt with huge stashes of money, although not so much Shokin himself from what I have read. He didn't seem to have accumulated his own personal fortune.

4. The EU, IMF, and US wanted Shokin gone because they saw him as the biggest obstacle to cleaning up corruption in Ukraine because it was his office that was supposed to be doing it and he wasn't getting the job done. But the larger objective talked about more was fighting corruption in Ukraine. Shokin was just one aspect of a larger push by the west to get Ukraine to clean up its act. So he doesn't necessarily get huge press back in 2016 since he was more of a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

And yet the European Union report clearly states...

Based on these commitments, the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been
achieved.

They had to make that determination to release the next batch of IMF funding.

So the same EU that said the "attorney general" of Ukraine had to go because he wasn't doing a good enough job fighting corruption, writes a report that basically says the "attorney general" of Ukraine set up anti-corruption mechanisms that meets the anti-corruption benchmark they said had to be met in order to get funding from the same IMF that said the "attorney general" of Ukraine wasn't doing enough to fight corruption and had to go. But yeah, we'll go ahead and release the money anyway.

That sure makes a lot of sense.

And then Joe Biden comes along, as Vice President of the US, after the US had concluded that anti-corruption measures in Ukraine were coming along well enough to release even more funds to Ukraine and tells Ukraine they won't get the money unless the "attorney general" of Ukraine, who set up anti-corruption mechanisms deemed adequate enough to get more US funding, is fired.

That makes a lot of sense as well.