#66 Primero aclarar que me he expresado bastante mal en cuanto a la privacidad de la llamada. Obviamente, las partes implicadas en una llamada de este estilo, siempre (a través de sus respectivas agencias de inteligencia) van a grabar y almacenar dicha llamada. Lo que hace todavía más increible pensar que Trump, que sabe que las agencias de inteligencia americanas y ucranianas le escuchan, hiciese cualquier tipo de amenaza fuera de lugar.
Dicho esto, y con las fuentes de #1 en la mano:
spoiler
'Some of Mr. Trump’s close allies were also urging the Ukrainian government to investigate matters that could hurt the president’s political rivals, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family.
[...]
Mr. Giuliani said he did not know whether Mr. Trump discussed those matters with Mr. Zelensky, but argued it would not be inappropriate.
The president has the right to tell another country’s leader to investigate corruption, particularly if it “bleeds over” into the United States, Mr. Giuliani said on Thursday. “If I were president, I would say that,” he added.
[...]
Last week, the two issues merged when Mr. Schiff and two other Democratic House committee chairmen requested the transcript of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky from the State Department and the White House as part of an investigation into whether Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani were misappropriating the American foreign policy apparatus for political gain.
The Democrats indicated they planned to examine whether the delay in the assistance “is part of President Trump’s effort to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing politically motivated investigations.”
[...]
Mr. Trump regularly speaks with foreign leaders and is often unfettered. Some current and former officials said that what an intelligence official took to be a troubling commitment could have been an innocuous comment.
Mr. Trump’s calls with other leaders are unlike anything his predecessors engaged in, one European diplomat said. The president eschews the kind of structured calls of his predecessors and instead quickly moves from the stated topic of the call to others. He will disclose his ideas for forthcoming summit meetings and test ideas and policies in a seemingly casual way, the diplomat said.'
'The facts of this story begin in April 2014, when Hunter Biden joined the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma Holdings, shortly after his business partner in an investment and consulting firm, Devon Archer, came aboard. Although Biden had no apparent expertise in the field, he had helped Burisma previously as a consultant with expertise in dealing with multinational regulations, and he was employed at a law firm retained by Burisma’s owner, former Ukrainian government official Mykola Zlochevsky.
When Biden joined Burisma’s board, both the company and Zlochevsky were already the subject of intense controversy. Zlochevsky had served as a top official for Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced out of office in early 2014, in part due to concerns over rampant corruption. Zlochevsky was accused of corruption as well, including for steering large government contracts to companies he owned.
One party investigating these allegations was the United Kingdom, because Zlochevsky had $23 million in a British bank account that UK officials believed has been laundered. Britain’s Serious Fraud Office froze that account, and shortly after Yanukovych left office in February 2014, sent a request to Ukrainian officials for documents it believed would help in prove its case. Following this request, the new Ukrainian government began its own investigation into Zlochevsky, looking into whether he embezzled public money.
In the midst of these troubles, Hunter Biden accepted a Burisma board seat, and was paid for his trouble, sometimes as much as $50,000 per month. It is unclear what he did for the company. Burisma said at the time that Biden — a lawyer — would be “in charge of” a legal unit. Biden told the New York Times in May 2019 that this was incorrect: “At no time was I in charge of the company’s legal affairs.”
[...]
The part of the story that involves Joe Biden directly centers on the ouster of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.
In February 2015, Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, and promised critics of his country’s anti-corruption efforts at home, in the US, and at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that a clean-up was on the way. And he claimed Burisma was in his sights.
But Shokin’s deputy, Vitaly Kasko, told Bloomberg that the promise was empty rhetoric. According to Kasko, their office did nothing to pursue its investigation into Zlochevsky throughout 2015, and the office was ineffective at reining in corruption generally, leading him to resign in frustration.
Shokin has disputed Kasko’s narrative, but the manner in which he was running his office also concerned the US ambassador to Ukraine, who said publicly in September 2015 that the office was “subverting” the UK’s investigation.
Concern at the embassy mounted, and by 2016, officials there began suggesting the Obama administration push for the prosecutor general’s ouster. In particular, the embassy suggested that $1 billion in loan guarantees the country hoped to receive from the US in order to stay solvent should be tied to a tougher anti-corruption strategy that involved removing officials seen as blocking progress, namely Shokin.
It wasn’t just the US that wanted Shokin gone, either — many other Western European officials, including the IMF’s then-managing director Christine Lagarde, also insisted Ukraine was doing far too little about corruption.
So in March 2016, Biden says he told the Ukrainian government that their loan guarantees would be cut off unless they removed Shokin. He told the story at a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours,” Biden told his audience. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”
The former vice president said after the threat, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
But though Biden may have taken credit for it, this was hardly his unique idea. “Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”
The people of Ukraine wanted Shokin gone as well, and demonstrated for his removal around the time of Biden’s threat. Shortly after that demonstration, Shokin was dismissed.'
Básicamente, el G-7, el FMI, y Joe 'toca niñas' Biden quieren a Shokin fuera porque dicen que no está haciendo nada contra la corrupción (habló de putas la Tacones), y le amenazan (curiosamente lo mismo de lo que acusan a Trump) con que o investiga (imagino que lo que a ellos les de la gana), o le negarán un billón de dolares (1000M) a Ucrania. La prensa internacional (que tan imparcial ha demostrado ser en estos últimos 4 años) respalda la postura del G-7, FMI y Joe Manos Largas, mientras que tildan la posición de Trump de 'teoría de la conspiración'. Recordemos que la postura de Trump y su equipo era que, ya que Shokin estaba investigando la empresa a la que el hijo de Biden se había unido en 2014, que le echasen un vistazo a él también, empleando en todo momento la lógica de que dicha empresa estaba manchada de arriba abajo por corrupción. Puedes llamar a eso 'teoría de la conspiración', pero no deja de ser una sospecha bastante lógica y justificada.
Ahora, la acusación de que Trump ha amenazado al presidente ucraniano con cortar el grifo de la ayuda militar (?) que está recibiendo Ucrania por parte de EEUU en caso de no facilitarle información sobre el hijo de Biden, se la han inventado totalmente. En las fuentes de #1 podemos leer que lo único que han notado es que el pago de esta ayuda ha disminuido levemente en los últimos meses (?), y hacen el malabar intelectual de unir esa desaceleración en el pago con una amenaza por parte de Trump.
El denunciante de todo esto, no escuchó la llamada, no hay ni un solo indicio para pensar que Trump haya amenazado a Ucrania con cortarle el grifo de ayuda a cambio de favores políticos (y si hubiese ocurrido esto, sería exactamente lo mismo que hizo el FMI en el año 2015). Trump y su equipo llevan mucho tiempo pidiendo públicamente a Ucrania que investigue qué narices hace allí el hijo de Biden, y es una petición absolutamente legal y lógica teniendo en cuenta el tráfico de influencias EEUU-Ucrania que se dio durante el comienzo de la guerra civil (la cual si seguiste, sabrás perfectamente a lo que me refiero).
Y no hay mucho más que sacar de aquí. Pelosi quiere presentar un impeachment sin ningún tipo de prueba sólida en la mano, a la desesperada. La prensa construye y aviva una narrativa que justifica y eleva la posición demócrata a pesar de carecer totalmente de pruebas y argumentos, como llevan haciendo 4 años. Joe Biden pide a Trump que publique las transcripciones y Trump dice que las va a publicar hoy y ahora los demócratas dicen que las transcripciones no importan y que lo que vale es el testimonio del denunciante (sí, el que no ha escuchado la llamada).
Ya pueden tener un as en la manga los demócratas para haber levantado todo este circo, porque con la información pública que tenemos, no tiene muy buena pinta para ellos.
Espero que podamos leer las transcripciones.
PD: Y sobre los escándalos en EEUU ligados a presidentes... es que me da hasta pereza. Empieza por el armamiento y entrenamiento de muyahidines que lleva a la creación de Al-Qaeda, solo para echar a los soviéticos de Oriente Medio. La alianza con el país creador del Wahabismo, motor de toda la jihad que nos toca sufrir hoy en el mundo, y todo por intereses en Oriente Medio otra vez. Llevar acabo o permitir (como la inteligencia rusa demuestra) el 11 de Septiembre con la única motivación de justificar una guerra masiva en Oriente medio, otra vez. Inventarse la existencia de armas de destrucción masiva para justificar guerras cuando hasta las cabras sabían que era mentira. La NSA espiando a todo el mundo con el permiso de Obama... y estoy tirando de memoria y sin ganas. Seguro que me dejo 25 más.
PD2: Créete que en ningún momento defiendo a Trump, ya que no deja de ser la otra cara de la misma moneda. Pero ni muerto voy a fiarme de la palabra de gente como Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, FMI, etc, etc. Valiente panda de mafiosos criminales tienen que ser para sentirse con derecho de ser los jueces y árbitros de la moral política americana e internacional. Ojalá viva para ver el día en que se pudran todos ellos, incluyendo a los medios de comunicación que crean y sostienen sus asquerosas narrativas. Prefiero a un tío como Trump, que aunque siga lamiéndole el culo a los asesinos israelíes y saudíes por lo menos ha solucionado el conflicto sirio y norcoreano en menos de 4 años y ha evitado la inevitable guerra contra Irán, que la panda de demonios que van en su contra que lo único que saben hacer es manipular emocionalmente a la población para llevar a cabo sus intereses y repartirse las ganancias entre los 4 hijos de puta que son.
Que agusto me he quedao'.
