United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

DarthOne

☦️
Europeans latest to provide evidence undercutting Joe Biden story about firing Ukrainian prosecutor


Biden's story has been that he threatened to withhold loan to Ukraine only because prosecutor Shokin was not meeting anti-corruption standards. His own State Dep't said otherwise, now evidence shows that the EU concluded Shokin had met 'benchmarks' on anti-corruption reforms.

A week after then-Vice President Joe Biden began pressuring Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor in late 2015 by withholding U.S. loan guarantees, the European Union reached internal consensus in a memo saying that Prosecutor Viktor Shokin's office and the country at large had met its goals for fighting corruption, organized crime and human trafficking.

The newly revealed memo directly undercuts the narrative crafted by Democrats during Donald Trump's first impeachment and sustained during the 2020 presidential election, namely, that Biden fired Shokin over U.S. and European concerns that he wasn't fighting corruption aggressively enough.

At the time, Shokin was investigating the activities of energy company Burisma Holdings. And Hunter Biden -- who had no experience in the energy industry -- was being paid at least $83,333 a month by Burisma.

"Based on these commitments, the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved," the European Commission, a key governing body of the EU Parliament, declared in a December 18, 2015 report that gave a generally rosy assessment of Ukraine's pace of reforms and specifically the efforts of Shokin's Prosecutor General Office.

The report, obtained by The New York Post and Just the News, noted that Shokin, just a few months on the job, had already established a special national anti-corruption prosecutor's office to aid the newly formed FBI-approved investigative unit called the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.

"On 30 November, the General Prosecutor appointed the head of the specialized anti-corruption prosecution," the EU report noted, urging Shokin to continue to refine the appointment and safeguard it to ensure the office remained independent and free from influence.

The report approvingly noted numerous other commitments Shokin and other Ukrainian leaders made to fast-track and build on the progress they were making reforming anti-corruption tools and policies.

Calling Shokin's work "an important step forward" the report continued to say that "The progress noted in the fifth report on anti-corruption policies, particularly the legislative and institutional progress, has continued." The EU added that "civil society continued to play a key role in moving the anti-corruption agenda forward," the report said, in one of the most glowing the Commission had given Ukraine since 2015.

Most notably, the report made no mention of firing Shokin or withholding any Western aid.

You can read the full report here.

EU-SixthReportUkraineVisaLiberalization.pdf

The report's tone matches the recomendations of internal State Department documents made public by Just the News late last month that show a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department experts had recommended in October 2015 that Ukraine had indeed made adequate progress in fighting corruption and deserved to receive $1 billion in new U.S. loan guarantees when Biden traveled to Ukraine in December 2015. Biden disregarded that information.

UkraineTaskForceLoanGuaranteeMemo.pdf
The State memos also included a personal letter in which top U.S. official Victoria Nuland personally told Shokin her boss Secretary of State John Kerry and the department was "impressed" with Shokin's progress.

NulandtoShokinJune2015.pdf
The emergence of the U.S. and European documents in 2023 directly conflict with the story Biden gave starting in 2019 about why he took the extraordinary action of withholding the U.S. loan guarantee until then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fired Shokin, who at the time was escalating a corruption probe against the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings that was paying his son Hunter millions of dollars.



Biden and his defenders claimed he was simply carrying out the U.S. policy recommendations of career officials and that European officials were in agreement that Shokin was corrupt and needed to be dismissed.

"It was a policy that was coordinated tightly with the Europeans, with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. But not only did we not see progress, we saw the PGO go backwards in this period," Nuland, now Biden's Undersecretary of State, told the Senate Homeland Security and Accountability Committee in 2020 testimony.


2020-09-03-Nuland Interview with Exhibits.pdf
Added former top U.S. envoy Kurt Volker: "When Vice President Biden made those representations to President Poroshenko he was representing U.S. policy at the time. And it was a general assumption I was not doing U.S. policy at the time but a general assumption among the European Union, France, Germany, American diplomats, U.K., that Shokin was not doing his job as a prosecutor general. He was not pursuing corruption cases."

Joe Biden himself picked up the excuse. "I did nothing wrong," the future president said during 2019 CNN-New York Times debate. "I carried out the policy of the United States government in rooting out corruption in Ukraine. And that's what we should be focusing on."



But the State Department records show Biden was urged to do the opposite: give the loan guarantee and Shokin and his team more time. The EU documents also show there wasn't alarm in Europe, at least not in December 2015 when Biden told Poroshenko for the first time he wanted Shokin fired.

In fact, the EU issued a public statement on Dec. 18, 2015 with even more encouraging words than the report, praising Ukrainian officials who had made "enormous progress."

"I congratulate the Ukrainian leadership on the progress made towards completing the reform process which will bring important benefits to the citizens of Ukraine in the future. The hard work towards achieving this significant goal has paid off. Now it is important to keep upholding all the standards," EU Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos declared at the time.

Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-Wis.), who chaired the 2020 Homeland Security probe of the Bidens told Just the News on Thursday night the body of evidence from State and the EU leaves him convinced that Joe Biden changed U.S. policy and forced the firing of Shokin because it would benefit his son Hunter, who was being pressured by Burisma to deal with Shokin.



"The European Commission was satisfied with this. The administration was satisfied with this, I believe Ambassador Pyatt was satisfied with this. But Hunter Biden wasn't," Johnson said. "You start seeing emails where he's getting pressure. ... They start scrambling, I mean, he's got to start, you know, making good on the millions of dollars he's getting paid by Burisma, to protect them. And that's exactly what ended up happening. Joe Biden then on a dime, changed US policy to the surprise of everyone."

Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, (R-Ga.), a member of the House Oversight Committee currently probing the Biden family businesses, agreed.

"It's shocking, absolutely shocking," Greene told the "Just the News, No Noise" television on Thursday night. "It seems like every single day, more and more comes out. Now we have this information that the European Union completely approved of Viktor Shokin's job and the job he was doing fighting corruption and his investigation into Burisma. But yet it was Joe Biden as Vice President of the United States. He was the one that didn't approve of Victor Shokin. And we all know why."

The European Commission report was the sixth in a series of reports the EU did starting in 2011 to monitor a key goal for the continent: to get Ukraine to liberalize its visa policies. The goal was not only to improve travel to Ukraine as a member of the EU but also to measure the larger fight against corruption and organized crime inside the former Soviet republic with a long history of grift and violence.



The December 2015 report concluded that Ukraine had not only met the benchmarks for anticorruption reform but also for document security, border control, human trafficking, organized crime and money laundering. Another goal met had a direct correlation to Shokin's office. "The law enforcement cooperation benchmark is deemed to have been achieved," it said.

The EU wasn't the only important voice cheering on Ukraine progress with rosy assessments. The George Soros-funded and internationally influential Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also weighed in during August 2015 with assessments similar to those of EU body and the State Department. It even singled out Shokin's office for being among the most active on reforms.

"Ukraine has adopted a package of anticorruption laws and established a set of institutions to fight corruption," the endowment's Ukraine Reform Monitor report dated Aug. 19, 2015 stated. "The general prosecutor's office has been the agency most active in this agenda. Judicial processes have been improved to introduce greater transparency and opportunities for public oversight of corruption cases. There have been no high-profile convictions yet.

"A new law on the prosecutor's office was approved in autumn 2014. It was amended in July 2015 to make prosecutors more active in anticorruption activities. Local prosecutors' offices are being reformed. All local-level prosecutors and their deputies are being dismissed, and they will be replaced by some 700 new regional prosecutors, who will be appointed by the general prosecutor's office in Kyiv," it added.



Joe Biden's role in pressuring then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in December 2015 to fire Shokin has been a searing controversy since April 2019, when the lead author on this story, as a columnist for The Hill, unearthed a 2018 videotape of the former vice president bragging about his role to a foreign policy think tank.

At the time Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption, the company was paying Hunter Biden and Archer, $83,333 a month as board members.

"I said, 'You're not getting the billion.' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money,'" Biden recounted in the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

The disclosure prompted then-President Donald Trump to ask Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate.



Democrats howled and eventually impeached Trump in late 2019. The Senate acquitted the former president. Today, the original column that prompted the controversy is preserved in the official records of Congress.

Evidence would show during impeachment and afterward that Biden's conversation with Poroshenko occurred during a trip to Kyiv in December 2015. Under withering pressure from U.S. and Western officials, the Ukrainian president eventually buckled and persuaded Shokin to resign a few months later in March 2016. Poroshenko would tell Biden there was no evidence Shokin had done anything wrong but he forced the resignation anyway to appease the president.

"Despite of the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges, we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I especially asked him … No, it was the day before yesterday. I especially asked him to resign," Poroshenko told Biden in an audio tape call from March 2016 that was eventually released by a Ukrainian lawmaker in 2020.

European Union memo DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with Biden story about firing Ukraine prosecutor probing son's business
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Europeans latest to provide evidence undercutting Joe Biden story about firing Ukrainian prosecutor




European Union memo DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with Biden story about firing Ukraine prosecutor probing son's business
Color me un-surprised.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
You get memed on a lot for your decades long timeline, but you're not wrong in that it's going to be a process. Decades of corrosion leftist policies got us here, it's going to take at least a generation of effort or blood to get out of the hole.

Pretty much but I'm honestly surprised that the process is happening as fast as it is.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
You get memed on a lot for your decades long timeline, but you're not wrong in that it's going to be a process. Decades of corrosion leftist policies got us here, it's going to take at least a generation of effort or blood to get out of the hole.

The people who expect things to turn around in mere years are the ones who really allowed themselves to get memed. That's already been demonstrated by the fact that they've been saying "any day now!!!" since at least 2008.

It's not going to happen any day now. As you said: decades more ahead. But decades during which things get worse and worse, while more and more people get angrier and angrier.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
The people who expect things to turn around in mere years are the ones who really allowed themselves to get memed. That's already been demonstrated by the fact that they've been saying "any day now!!!" since at least 2008.

It's not going to happen any day now. As you said: decades more ahead. But decades during which things get worse and worse, while more and more people get angrier and angrier.
its decades ahead... until its not.
simply look at any historical case. things can be slow or can be fast, and predicting ahead of time when it will suddenly go from smoldering to exploding is neigh impossible
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
its decades ahead... until its not.
simply look at any historical case. things can be slow or can be fast, and predicting ahead of time when it will suddenly go from smoldering to exploding is neigh impossible

It's certainly true that things go slowly until they suddenly go very swiftly indeed.

It's not true that predicting when this will most probably happen is night-impossible. Even leaving aside any macro-historical analysis, the simple fact is that this particular thing can be effectively predicted by looking at one singe factor: desperation.

At present, throughout the West, there is still a sizable middle class, with a lot to lose. This middle class is in danger, is under pressure, is gradually being eaten away by encroaching poverty as socio-economic conditions change for the worse... but they still have much to lose. As long as that is true for a sufficiently large segment of the populace, there will be no great turnings. The middle class, even though they see the danger they're in, will not risk what they still have by engaging in "dangerous experiments".

At present, enough people are angry enough -- pressured enough, desperate enough -- to see a candidate like Trump narrowly elected. There is, however, no sufficient support to give his populist agenda a clear majority in the legislative bodies of the state. (In Europe, certainly Western Europe, the willingness to do even that much remains absent.)

This tells us that real change is still decades away.

It'll come when things have gotten so bad that the middle class has functionally been destroyed. When a clear majority of the people has nothing left to lose by knocking over the entire board-- then, and only then, will the board be knocked over.

That point has not yet been reached. You can just about see it on a distant horizon. You can see that it's coming, and you can extrapolate current socio-economic trends to get a sense of when that situation will actually come about. And when you do so, you find that it'll take several decades still.



(One possible factor that can demonstrably affect things is an 'outside context problem'. This can hasten or delay things, to a given degree. For instance: France was set for major troubles i the run-up to 1800 or so, and this had been building for a very long time. But then the Laki volcano erupted on Iceland, causing crop failures throughout Europe, and France -- already burdened with a failing economic system -- was hit the hardest. The subsequent famines were the proximate cause for the revolution. Had that volcano not erupted, the explosion of popular outrage might well have occurred a decade later or so.)
 

DarthOne

☦️
Or so they keep telling us. Maybe that’s what they want us to think, to demoralize us and to keep us playing their game. When what we need to start seriously considering is to kick over the chess board like a angry ape.

Just something to consider.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Or so they keep telling us. Maybe that’s what they want us to think, to demoralize us and to keep us playing their game. When what we need to start seriously considering is to kick over the chess board like a angry ape.

Just something to consider.

"They" don't tell you that at all. The establishment constantly parrots the progressive line that opposes all attempts at thorough historical analysis. In fact, it's in their interest that people riot now -- "too early" -- because they still have the power to A) beat any attempt, and B) turn it into an excuse to consolidate power. See: the Jan. 6th thing.

Additionally, if you want to see what the "angry ape" strategy looks like: it's called BLM. Looting and burning and generally achieving nothing.

If you want to lose the culture war, definitely try to cause a civil war while your opponent still has the upper hand. Great idea. If you want to win... take advantage of the fact that time is on your side, wait for them to weaken and for anti-establishment sentiment to broaden along the populace, and then launch your campaign.

The Fabian approach worked wonders for the left when the direction of events was in their favour. Now that the factor time has turned in the right's favour, that same strategy can work wonders for the right as well. That does require a bit of big-picture thinking, and a reasonable degree of foresight.

Angry apes sure as hell won't manage it.
 

DarthOne

☦️
"They" don't tell you that at all. The establishment constantly parrots the progressive line that opposes all attempts at thorough historical analysis. In fact, it's in their interest that people riot now -- "too early" -- because they still have the power to A) beat any attempt, and B) turn it into an excuse to consolidate power. See: the Jan. 6th thing.

Additionally, if you want to see what the "angry ape" strategy looks like: it's called BLM. Looting and burning and generally achieving nothing.

If you want to lose the culture war, definitely try to cause a civil war while your opponent still has the upper hand. Great idea. If you want to win... take advantage of the fact that time is on your side, wait for them to weaken and for anti-establishment sentiment to broaden along the populace, and then launch your campaign.

The Fabian approach worked wonders for the left when the direction of events was in their favour. Now that the factor time has turned in the right's favour, that same strategy can work wonders for the right as well. That does require a bit of big-picture thinking, and a reasonable degree of foresight.

Angry apes sure as hell won't manage it.

You misunderstand by point. It’s not that we need to kick over the chess table this exact second.

It’s that we need to get it into our heads that ultimately playing their political game isn’t going to win because they won’t let us. They won’t let us vote our way out, at least not easily.

When is this miraculous moment when the establishment isn’t going to have power going to happen? Because yes, the Right might have won some isolated victories, I am not seeing the tide being turned. They control the media, entertainment and the courts.

It all just strikes me as a bit too much of ‘trust the plan guys, just a few more days!’

Also, what happens when the Establishment adapts or puts some new laws into being that undoes our hard work? Because as we’ve seen, they won’t let us take their power away. And every day that goes by, the more people that are indoctrinated into their nonsense. Plus there’s the technological edge they hold, which will only grow ever more as time marches on.

The average person, as we’ve seen, doesn’t care about their own liberty and freedom so long as they think they can get their basic needs met by following the rules. Plus their too busy to pay attention to what’s going on even if they wanted to.

It’s not as if the Western governments aren’t already tyrannical. It’s just that they’re much better at hiding it and much more selective in their application. They won’t need to gulag people when they can just close off their bank account and cancel them from having a job.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
You misunderstand by point. It’s not that we need to kick over the chess table this exact second.

It’s that we need to get it into our heads that ultimately playing their political game isn’t going to win because they won’t let us. They won’t let us vote our way out, at least not easily.

When is this miraculous moment when the establishment isn’t going to have power going to happen? Because yes, the Right might have won some isolated victories, I am not seeing the tide being turned. They control the media, entertainment and the courts.

It all just strikes me as a bit too much of ‘trust the plan guys, just a few more days!’

Also, what happens when the Establishment adapts or puts some new laws into being that undoes our hard work? Because as we’ve seen, they won’t let us take their power away. And every day that goes by, the more people that are indoctrinated into their nonsense. Plus there’s the technological edge they hold, which will only grow ever more as time marches on.

The average person, as we’ve seen, doesn’t care about their own liberty and freedom so long as they think they can get their basic needs met by following the rules. Plus their too busy to pay attention to what’s going on even if they wanted to.

It’s not as if the Western governments aren’t already tyrannical. It’s just that they’re much better at hiding it and much more selective in their application. They won’t need to gulag people when they can just close off their bank account and cancel them from having a job.

Its not trusting a plan its looking at all of the things that make up the lefts power base and looking at all of their structural weaknnesses and the mood of the country.

Fact is, the lefts position in life is inherently anti family, and when your anti family you don't have children. "But they will just have yours" people say. You run into the same anti family issues you've just kicked the can further down the road. Right now the lefts demographic issues have only started to nut punch them.

You have to wait longer, and its not going to be fun and things are going to get a lot fucking worse because they are consolidating power and creating the opulent court of idiots that always happen before a fall. But right now their still too strong to take on directly so you chip away at their power. Chip chip chip chisel away at it until it all comes down.

A lot of us wont be alive when it happens I fully expect to be murdered for example but all those structural long term problems will catch up to them.
 

DarthOne

☦️
Its not trusting a plan its looking at all of the things that make up the lefts power base and looking at all of their structural weaknnesses and the mood of the country.

Fact is, the lefts position in life is inherently anti family, and when your anti family you don't have children. "But they will just have yours" people say. You run into the same anti family issues you've just kicked the can further down the road. Right now the lefts demographic issues have only started to nut punch them.

You have to wait longer, and its not going to be fun and things are going to get a lot fucking worse because they are consolidating power and creating the opulent court of idiots that always happen before a fall. But right now their still too strong to take on directly so you chip away at their power. Chip chip chip chisel away at it until it all comes down.

A lot of us wont be alive when it happens I fully expect to be murdered for example but all those structural long term problems will catch up to them.

And how many atrocities are we willing to stomach? The long this stuff goes on the more it becomes normalized.
 

DarthOne

☦️
As many as it takes. The wonderful thing of the information age is that everything is recorded now.
And gets lost in a sea of data and is unlikely seen by the population at large unless the Establishment wants to make it the next Current Thing. Meanwhile the normies are too preoccupied with drama from the entertainment industry or whatever.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
You misunderstand by point. It’s not that we need to kick over the chess table this exact second.

We actually agree on this, no doubt.


It’s that we need to get it into our heads that ultimately playing their political game isn’t going to win because they won’t let us. They won’t let us vote our way out, at least not easily.

We agree on this as well. My point isn't that this will be resolved by democratic means -- it won't -- but rather that the West isn't nearly ready for the culture wars to escalate into (essentially) a civilisation-spanning a civil war. That war is coming, but only when things have gotten so bad that a majority actually wants it. If you try to make it happen before that point, you will lose very badly.


When is this miraculous moment when the establishment isn’t going to have power going to happen? Because yes, the Right might have won some isolated victories, I am not seeing the tide being turned. They control the media, entertainment and the courts.

It's not miraculous at all, and I explained the main driving factor behind it. The tide has, indeed, not turned yet. That's why any attempt to "flip the board" now (or very soon) is going to be a non-starter.

The establishment controls the intitutions, yes. Trust in the institutions is also declining year over year. Something like the Trump trials and the "bolstering" of elections is helping that process along nicely. But many people still trust "the system" to a considerable degree. They're terrified of anarchy. Of losing what they have.

But as things get worse, more and more have less and less (to lose). And over time, they turn against the system. Against the establihment that has not only failed them, but betrayed them.

That is the process that dooms the establishment. It's a slow process, but a very certain one. (You may have heard what the ancients said, about the mills of the gods. They grind slowly, but they grind very fine indeed.)


It all just strikes me as a bit too much of ‘trust the plan guys, just a few more days!’

On the contrary, that's the attitude I'm warning against. Nothing of this is -- literally or metaphorically -- a matter of days. I'm warning people against false optimism, because that burns you out when things don't change within a short period. To make it through this, you have to grasp that this is going to take time.


Also, what happens when the Establishment adapts or puts some new laws into being that undoes our hard work? Because as we’ve seen, they won’t let us take their power away. And every day that goes by, the more people that are indoctrinated into their nonsense. Plus there’s the technological edge they hold, which will only grow ever more as time marches on.

The average person, as we’ve seen, doesn’t care about their own liberty and freedom so long as they think they can get their basic needs met by following the rules. Plus their too busy to pay attention to what’s going on even if they wanted to.

It’s not as if the Western governments aren’t already tyrannical. It’s just that they’re much better at hiding it and much more selective in their application. They won’t need to gulag people when they can just close off their bank account and cancel them from having a job.

Establishments are notoriously bad at adapting. Thinking that they're so very creative is the true blackpill, that leads one into senseless nihilism. Governments are dumb beasts. The bigger they are, the dumber they get.

The current system is doomed to fail. No system based on fiduciary currency has survived long-term. No system based on structural and significant debt has survived long-term. No system based on structurally high taxes and a great degree of compulsive redistribution has survived long-term. The very nature of such systems is suicidal. And every example of such approaches in history has seen the establishment cling to them until they were foribly torn down. Because once the elite hitches its wagon to such approaches, they can't un-hitch it anymore without relinquishing their ill-gotten power.

So the inevitable outcome, each time, is conflict and revolution. And that is why time works against the establishment, now. The number of people who have been screwed over increases every year; the number of people willing to uphold the system decreases correspondingly. It's already gotten to the (universally terminal!) point where the elite relies on giving hand-outs to under-class groups in order to buy their votes. (In ancient times, this was a grain dole; in the current time, it's welfare.)

Let me tell you how that ends: eventually, things get bad enough that they can't afford the hand-outs anymore. At that stage, they'll drop every pretence of democracy, and prioritise paying their armed forces. That'll buy them a little time, but not too long after that, things get so bad that they can't reliably pay their soldiers anymore.

And then it ends.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top