2) Three weeks later, on Nov. 22, Joe Biden demanded the removal of Ukraine prosecutor Shokin.
Biden's sudden demand seems odd as US State Dept officials had previously praised Shokin in the months leading up to Biden's demand for Shokin's removal.
3) In June 2015, Victoria Nuland told Shokin she was “impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda”
Nuland stated that Shokin had demonstrated his ability to “investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner.”
4) In a September 2015 speech, Geoffrey Pyatt, then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, stated that “we want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin” because Shokin was “leading the fight against corruption” in Ukraine.
This was only two months before Biden's demand for Shokin's removal.
5) Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko initially pushed back against Biden's demands, but Biden leveraged $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer loan guarantees to force Shokin’s removal.
Shokin was finally removed by Poroshenko in March 2016.
6) MSM media has claimed that Shokin's investigation of Burisma was closed before Biden pushed for his firing.
But Shokin successfully sought an order from Ukrainian courts to seize Zlochevsky’s assets — which were seized on Feb. 2, 2016 — just a month before Shokin’s firing.
7) Hunter's laptop was verified some time back. But the validation by the NYT has removed the Washington establishment’s ability to continue their denial of the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s emails. nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/…
8) But that hasn't stopped them from trying.
@PressSec tried a new approach, claiming that "He [Hunter] doesn't work in the government"
13) The media, intelligence community and DNC all lied in order to alter the outcome of an election.
How can the corporate media, which repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to lie for political partisan gain, be entrusted to provide us with accurate coverage of...anything?
14) The NYT's secondary validation of Hunter's emails and laptop should be raising huge questions w/in Congress regarding Biden's entanglements — and his fitness to direct foreign policy involving Ukraine, Russia and our potential involvement in that conflict.
15) Most of the GOPe has failed to demand answers
And despite very real questions regarding Biden's fitness to direct policy on Ukraine-Russia conflict, the GOPe has appeared to move in lockstep on most of his decisions.
1) On July 28, 2016, Brennan briefed Obama on Clinton’s July 26 plan to tie Trump to Russian election interference “as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
2) In the weeks that followed the FBI’s opening of its Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Brennan took a number of actions that appear to have been intended to actively reinforce the basic premise behind Clinton’s plan—that Russia was interfering in the election to help Trump.
3) One of the first actions from Brennan took place on Aug. 4, 2016, when he suddenly warned Russia’s FSB head Alexander Bortnikov not to engage in U.S. election interference.
Brennan later claimed that he “was the first U.S. official to brace Russia on this issue.”
2) Although Russian President Vladimir Putin is rightly deserving of blame, top U.S. officials over the past decade have played important roles in critical events that undermined U.S. relations with Russia and resulted in the destabilization of Ukraine.
3) The deterioration in our relations with Russia, in many ways started with President George W. Bush in 2008 when he dangled before Ukraine the promise of NATO membership during the Bucharest declaration.
Written for a private client [Deripaska] but shared widely within the US State Dept, and sent up to Sec. of State John Kerry and assistant Sec. of State Victoria Nuland — who was in charge of the US response to Putin’s annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.
Nuland: "During the Ukraine crisis in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what was going on between them."
2) On July 28, 2016, Brennan briefed Obama that Clinton had approved a plan to tie Trump to Russian election interference “as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”
3) The very next day, on July 29, Sussmann, Elias, Steele and Fusion operatives met in Perkins' offices.
Steele learned of the Alfa allegations at this meeting.
Meanwhile, Baker was asked if this type of interaction with an outside counsel had ever occurred before. In response, Baker admitted that his interaction with Sussmann was singularly unique:
Mr. Baker: I that that’s correct. Sitting here today, that’s the only one I can remember
Sussmann was never interviewed by the FBI, which Baker also found surprising, noting:
“It is logical to me that we [the FBI] would go back and interview [Sussmann].”
Sussmann WAS interviewed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Dec. 18, 2017.
Meadows to Baker:
“Everything about this investigation seems to have been done in an abnormal way, the way that you have gotten the information, the way that Strzok got information, the way that Ohr was used, the way that Perkins Coie actually came in and gave you information.”