Thread by @ClimateAudit

In May 2020, a Ukrainian parliamentarian asked a question that is once again being revisited: a few months before Biden's demand for Shokin's resignation, Poroshenko, Europe and State Dept had all positively assessed progress of Prosecutor General Office. What caused change?

needless to say, the two prominent Ukrainians who asked that question were subsequently sanctioned by the US security state. Under the so-called "Trump administration" and remain censored to this day. But question was and is valid.

the Ukrainians had an interesting explanation that I'll get to later on. First, I'll review some known dates, while adding some details. Biden defenders say that demand for Shokin resignation arose in the "interagency". If so, records ought to be abundant in the bureaucracy

we KNOW that there was an interagency meeting on Sept 30, 2015 at which the interagency agreed that "Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee" and the minutes (to vast list) made no mention of Shokin firing justthenews.com/sites/default/…

Republicans (with usual inefficiency) have more or less totally neglected production of relevant interagency documents in Oct-Nov 2015 that would shed light on this issue, but there is an important, undiscussed available document from Nov 5, 2015 - narrowing period a lot

On Oct 23, 2015, Christina Segal-Knowles followed up her Oct 1, 2015 minutes with a final list of conditions precedent for the third loan guarantee (the one that Joe Biden later held hostage.)

later, on Jan 15, 2016 (on eve of meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors), Segal-Knowles (at NSC with Ciaramella and Zentos) sent document entitled "2015-11-05 CPs for Ukraine LG3_clean.docx" [CPs=Conditions Precedent]. See Pyatt Transcript Exhibits, p 143.

for the purposes of our chronology, the 2015-11-05 Conditions Precedent were distributed one day before Amos Hochstein's meeting with Hunter Biden and were up-to-date interagency policy prior to that meeting.

The 2015-11-05 Conditions Precedent were shown in Pyatt Transcript Exhibits, p 147-148 (the very end). In regard to Prosecutor General, they required establishment of Inspector General office in Prosecutor General Office. Nothing about firing Shokin.

On Oct 29, 2015, Burisma's Vadym Pozharskyi had traveled to Washington to meet with Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and Blue Star (Tramontano, Painter) about "deliverables" in respect to US. On Nov 2, 2015, Pozharskyi sent email memorializing meeting.

Burisma had far-reaching expectations from its extravagant payments to Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and (soon) Blue Star. While the arrangement is well known, far too little attention is paid to Pozharskyi's stated expectations. Which he'd reviewed with Hunter in person on Oct 29.

They expected Hunter to ensure that "high-ranking US officials in Ukraine (US Ambassador) and in US publicly or in private communication/comment expressing their "positive opinion" and support of Nikolay/Burisma to the highest level of decision makers here in Ukraine"

Burisma also expected "a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November" with a view to "close down any cases/pursuits against" Zlochevsky.

as discussed in a previous thread, Hunter called Amos Hochstein's office on Nov 2 and arranged a meeting on Nov 6. Hochstein testified that it was the ONLY time that Hunter sought a meeting with him and that they discussed Burisma.

in his testimony to Senate Committee in 2020, Hochstein stated, inter alia, that (1) he wanted prosecution of Zlochevsky and Burisma; (2) that he had warned Joe Biden in late October about "Russian disinformation" pointing to Hunter's association with Burisma

(3) that Hunter told him that Joe had talked to him (Hunter) about his discussion with Hochstein and that Hunter wanted to talk directly with Hochstein to get his views on Burisma.
Hochstein's evidence was incorrect on many public details of Burisma events and may be self-serving

On Nov 13, Joe Biden announced a trip to Ukraine. Pozharskyi emailed Hunter immediately. One of his key deliverables was a "visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in Nov". Had Hunter delivered? Beyond expectation?

this thread began with Burisma's Pozharskyi trip to Washington on Oct 29, 2015 to set out required deliverables to Hunter, Archer and Blue Star. The explanation from Ukr parliamentarian (Derkach) and prosecutor (Kulyk) links back to earlier thread on Chornovol's hate for Kasko

Readers may recall Nabuleaks exhibits showing transfers from Burisma account in Latvia to Morgan Stanley account of Rosemont Seneca Bohai. Originally presented in October 2019 by Derkach and were (uncredited) source of first hard info on size of Hunter payments.

There's an interesting feature to the dates in these ledgers. Though we know that payments to Hunter continued until much later, the latest listed payment to Rosemont Seneca was Nov 18, 2015. So why doesn't the ledger show ongoing later payments?

The answer is pretty clear: the Latvian bank documents were delivered to the Prosecutor General's Office in November 2015. It's a reasonable surmise that arrangements for delivery of the documents had been negotiated in or about October 2015 and delivered a few weeks later.

Kulyk was the prosecutor who succeeded in recovering $1.5 billion of funds from Yanukovich "syndicate" in 2017 - the only substantial recovery of funds. In contrast, FBI, DOJ recovered $0, despite constant bleating and complaining.

Kulyk spent next two years (to March 28, 2019) on further investigation of money laundering associated with Sergei Kurchenko, the young oligarch who appears to have acted as "wallet" for the Yanukovych syndicate (who were prior to Poroshenko syndicate, prior to Zelensky syndicate

on March 28, 2019, the second anniversary of confiscation of $1.5 billion, Prosecutor General Lutsenko announced that Kulyk had finished enormous money laundering investigation, with suspicions issued to nearly 100 people. See tsn.ua/ukrayina/sprav…

more later.

@PetriKrohn @USTreasury @MoonofA I've archived copies of some of the videos using wget - a technique that I didn't know until a few years ago. For Bitchute, I had to look up the exact mp4 link in the view-source.

@Comment4_U Rather than US micro-management of its Ukrainian colony leading to reduced corruption, it appears to have dramatically exacerbated the already bad corruption. I think that this issue ought to be discussed much more as Burisma isn't only issue that deserves sunshine.

@RockKenwell Derkach was source for information that Hunter Biden was being paid $83,333 per month by Burisma, the amount first being public in October 2019. That information was not "Russian disinformation", no matter how often the mantra was repeated by US intel agencies.

Lutsenko March 28, 2019 announcement of Kulyk's report (Deputy Head, International Legal Cooperation) was both a milestone and turning point that was ignored in west. I'll discuss in separate thread but note highlights here briefly. Kulyk's team assembled more than 3000 volumes

Lutsenko reported a wide range of offenses associated with the Kurchenko money laundering network. One would have thought that US embassy, ostensibly so committed to "anti-corruption", would have been praising Lutsenko and Kulyk to roof tops. But they weren't.

Lutsenko also reported that 98 people had been issued suspicions.

bonus points to any readers who connected Kurchenko back to the original seizure of Zlochevsky $25 million in London in 2014, about which George Kent, Pyatt and US Embassy hyperventilated and purported to blame on Shokin (while ignoring Kulyk's success in seizing $1.5 billion).

$20 million of the deposits into the Brociti (Zlochevsky) account in London had come from a Kurchenko company. Z's lawyer (Kicha) informed court that a Kurchenko company had, in 2013, purchased an oil terminal from Zlochevsky, owned by Z since 2002.

the UK anti-corruption prosecutor countered by observing that Kurchenko had been sanctioned on Mar 6, 2014 (only a few days after US-backed regime change)

Zlochevsky's lawyer argued that each of the transactions "resulted in real assets being exchanged for real cash":

ultimately, UK judge determined that UK prosecutors hadn't supported their ex parte seizure and released the funds. Contrary to US embassy disinformation, Shokin was NOT Prosecutor General at the time. In fact, it was Kasko (their favorite) who was then in charge of International

a full exegesis of US embassy disinformation and misunderstanding of the London case re seizure of Zlochevsky funds needs to be written up (I have lengthy notes on the topic).

anyway, back to March 28, 2019 and the Lutsenko-Kulyk announcement. It precipitated a weird series of events -weird even by Ukrainian-Biden corruption standards and totally unreported in west. Even as both Lutsenko and Kulyk were then attracting attention via John Solomon

in U.S., online journal ForumDaily[.]com reported that members of Poroshenko's inner circle were issued suspicions, specifically former Presidential Administration (PA) head Lozhkin, former National Bank head Gontareva, current PA deputy head Filatov forumdaily.com/genprokuratura…

ForumDaily also reported that Zlochevsky had been caught up in the Kurchenko investigation and suspicions, linking to a previous ForumDaily article on Mar 26, 2019 forumdaily.com/podkupit-bajde…

the March 28, 2019 ForumDaily article (the sourcing of which is unclear) was immediately cited by Ukrainian media to disseminate allegations against Poroshenko's inner circle: ; ; vesti.ua/strana/330571-…
unian.net/politics/10496…
tsn.ua/ukrayina/sprav…

Within minutes, the Prosecutor General Office walked back the suspicions against Poroshenko's inner circle and began a process of icing and eventually firing Kulyk. Unian ; Facebook ; TCH unian.net/politics/10496…
facebook.com/lysenko.andrii…
tsn.ua/ukrayina/rechn…

later that day, Kulyk's files were removed from his office. Ultimately, Kulyk's investigation, with its 3000 volumes of evidence, appears to have been transferred to NABU (controlled by US Embassy) where it seems to have fizzled out without anything being done. Kulyk later fired

subsequently, Kulyk - praised by Chornovol as the prosecutor who recovered $1.5 billion of embezzled money, the ONLY such recovery to date - joined Derkach in his press conferences on Ukrainian corruption under Biden regency, to which Kulyk brought receipts.

Kulyk was subsequently sanctioned on Jan 10, 2021 by Treasury under so-called "Trump" administration, for disseminating supposed "Russian disinformation". But, when one looks at backstory, Kulyk had paid his dues as Ukrainian prosecutor with actual accomplishments

while Kulyk was carrying out his monumental investigation into Kurchenko money-laundering syndicate, he was simultaneously being investigated by NABU on charges of illegal enrichment in 2011-2015, including a complaint that he took a 10-day vacation in Bulgaria by car

ultimately, it's a herculean and probably impossible task to sort out which Ukrainian is more corrupt. What does seem certain is that there's little to no reason to trust George Kent or Amos Hochstein on such matters. Or for US embassy to be micro-managing.

back to the original question of what changed regarding Shokin in Oct-Nov 2015 as asked by Derkach and Kulyk having established that Kulyk had exhaustively investigated Kurchenko money laundering in which Zlochevsky was reported in 2019 to be a participant.

right now, none of us KNOWS what triggered the change. We KNOW that Vadym Pozharskyi, Zlochevsky's #2, visited Hunter Biden, Archer and Blue Star in Washington on Oct 29, 2015, following up with a memo on "deliverables" on Nov 2, 2015

We KNOW that Hunter Biden requested a meeting with Amos Hochstein on Nov 2, that they met on Nov 6 and that this was only such meeting ever requested by Hunter of Hochstein and that Hunter initiated discussion of Burisma.

here's Kulyk and Derkach's explanation for the sudden concern by Burisma and Biden. They stated in May 2020 that the Kurchenko money laundering investigation had discovered $3.4 million payment of "laundered money" to Rosemont Seneca Bohai

while there has been much publicity to the issue of quid pro quo, if the funds (quid pro quo or not) resulted from money laundering (as Kulyk believed), the situation is much worse.

we also know from Tetiana Chornovol that Shokin, Chornovol and Tyshchenko had had an explosive meeting with US embassy favorite Kasko (then head of International) about his failure to obtain money laundering documents from Latvia, such that Shokin set up parallel channel

the dates on the ledgers from Latvia indicate that
Shokin's direct channel to Latvia (circumventing the obfuscating Kasko) began yielding results in Oct-Nov 2015, exactly as US embassy/Biden began seeking Shokin's head.