Every time I've posted on this topic for hopefully the last time, I get sucked back into it.
Early Friday morning I got up early. There's a Fox & Friends First at about 4am EDT. I don't recall the exact context of the impeachment discussion, but the hosts and discussants were incredulous how Trump/clan rated as more corrupt (e.g., 56% vs 41% in this Yahoo poll). A lot of this focused on Hunter Biden, his infamous laptop, and various alleged foreign entanglements. The discussants basically attributed this poll result that none of the mainstream media were covering the Bidens like FNC.
I don't think this discussion explained Trump's high rating. But the Biden purported influence peddling is small potatoes versus a billionaire POTUS with international hotels, golf resorts and/or residential properties. A POTUS has a constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy. Perhaps Trump's most blatant example of a conflict of interest was initially deciding to host a 2020 G-7 summit at his Doral resort. But it goes beyond that and Trump hotels charging the USG up to $600/night/room for security personnel. Any Internet search will reveal various lists of Trump conflicts of interests, e.g., this portal claims 3737 conflicts of interest:
Trump ran as the “law and order” candidate who would “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. Instead he did the opposite, using his power as the President to boost his own profits through frequent visits to his hotels and golf courses, relentless promotion of his properties, and countless other interactions between the Trump Organization and the government. By keeping these properties, Trump provided corporate lobbyists, foreign actors, special interests and anyone else seeking political clout a way to gain access to his administration. Trump opened the presidency up for business, and for four years, influence was for sale.
The analyst basically presented a naive summary of Trump's "perfect" phone call with Zelensky, emphasizing Trump's disingenuous talking points. I've gone into some detail in past posts and won't repeat myself here but will provide enough context for discussion.
Ukraine oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky owned half of natural gas producer Burisma. He served the Ukraine President in minister-level roles from 2010 to 2012. (Apparently at some point in this period he sold his interest,) At some point the Ukraine solicitor general (AG) started investigating Zlochevsky/Burisma over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption. There was an early 2014 revolution pushing out of office a pro-Russia regime, which opposed popular pro-Western ties. Russia responded by seizing Crimea. Biden transitioned to a more proactive role as the US shared European concerns about rampant government corruption, including but not restricted to Zlochevsky/Burisma. And Hunter Biden took a multi-year lucrative appointment to the Burisma board.
So let me interrupt here to make a few comments. Zlochevsky was no longer part of Burisma when Hunter joined the board, and there were post-Revolution allegations of bribes to local prosecutors. But there is no connection of this misconduct to the knowledge or consent of Hunter. From the timetable I've seen, Joe Biden took on his new role over Ukraine oversight before Hunter took his place on the board. I don't know what or when Biden knew about specifics of Ukrainian corruption although assuming due diligence, one would think Biden would have been briefed fairly early relative to Hunter Biden's tenure at Burisma. At minimum, the US was aware of the Zlochevsky issue (the UK was investigating money laundering charges) and the 2014 bribery allegations.
Here's the point: you don't want the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest of say, that Burisma was buying Joe Biden's protection from Ukrainian prosecution of Burisma. I know if the context was that of public accounting, Hunter's compensation would be considered material and Hunter, at minimum, would need to resign. I have consistently argued Biden's failure to address Hunter's appointment was a breach of professional ethics. If Trump had focused on the conflict-of-interest issue, there would be no kerfuffle here.
Shokin was chosen as Solicitor General in 2015; he had been controversial from the get-go, opposing the prosecution of those involved in shootings of demonstrators during the recent uprising. local anti-corruption forces argued that he was slow-walking corruption charges like the above cited case against Zlochevsky and Burisma (among other things, he claimed relevant predecessor files and document had "disappeared" ("In July 2015, shortly after his appointment, reformist minority member Yehor Soboliev advanced a motion to dismiss Shokin for corruption, gaining 127 of the required 150 signatures including several members of the ruling parties.") Some of Shokin's prosecutors were found with cash, diamonds and valuables, presumably evidence of bribes/corruption:
David Sakvarelidze was five months into a new job as Ukraine’s reformist deputy chief prosecutor when a witness came forward with intelligence that would change the course of everything.
The witness, a sand producer in the Kiev region, complained of men extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars. It took a while to persuade the man to give evidence. But when he did, and the investigation began, the trail led to two of the country’s highest-placed prosecutors.
A search of the men’s apartments revealed a scene that looked like a comic heist: bags full of cash, diamonds and other precious stones. But that was not the only incriminating evidence. Documents seized at the time indicated the men appeared to have a connection to the top prosecutor in the land, Viktor Shokin.
Police found copies of Shokin’s passports, property registration certificates and even his licence to carry firearms. One of the two men, it transpired, was Shokin’s former driver who had subsequently climbed the ranks behind his boss.
Soon, [Sakvarelidze] faced a corruption investigation himself. At loggerheads with Shokin, he was pushed out of his job within the year.
Shokin cracked down on Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), Deputy Prosecutor, Vitaly Kasko resigned in early 2016, arguing corruption and lawlessness in the Solicitor General's office. And the Burisma case was dormant.
The Obama Administration became increasingly impatient with Shokin; the UK's money laundering case against Zlochevsky eventually got dismissed for lack of evidence as Ukraine refused to cooperate. The US started its own case.
By late 2015 Biden specifically threatened $1B in loan guarantees to Ukraine if Shokin was not fired. He would take full credit for Shokin's eventual termination by Ukraine's parliament in late March 2016. I don't think Biden's taking full credit for the dismissal was justifiable. For one thing, far bigger loan guarantees lesewhere were also at stake ("International Monetary Fund threatened to delay $40 billion in aid"). Other partners joined in the calls to oust Shokin (the IMF, the EU, and the EBRD among others, including local anti-corruption groups).
Shokin, in response, self-servingly claimed that he had been rolling out a case against Burisma, and that was the motivation for his dismissal. with Biden motivated to protect Hunter's lucrative board appointment. This is utterly transparent. There was no carveout of Burisma from ongoing post-Shokin prosecution, and the charges in question predated Biden's appointment.
During Shokin’s 13 months in office, not one major figure was convicted. No oligarch. No politician. No ranking bureaucrat. It would appear unlikely he was in the middle of breaking the habit with the Bidens.
So, now, let us review the context of Trump's infamous "perfect" phone call with Zelensky, which the FNC analyst recites at face value. Trump makes obvious reference to Shokin as a "very good" man. He is clearly incompetent on the recent history of Ukraine.
Trump is putting a squeeze on Zelensky, arguing that the US has given much to Ukraine and not gotten much in return. He points out that Europe hasn't been a dependable ally to Ukraine. Now he wants a favor: an investigation into the Bidens, and he has a point of contact (Giuliani).
Now there were checks on anti-corruption moves tied to the aid Trump had signed into the law. But there were a couple of checks by DoD on compliance; nevertheless, Trump had frozen the aid, which alarmed some in Congress, and the funding was shortly released without Zelensky delivering on Trump's extortion.
Trump's desire to have a Ukrainian investigation of Biden was clearly a politically motivated attack. He was abusing foreign relations authority not for the national interest but for purely personal, partisan reasons, a clearly impeachable crime.
