Thanks for the link, James. It is somewhat satisfactory. It is after the fact, what I wanted to see are requests before he was fired by the US.
Here's an AlJazeera story detailing the frustrations with the Ukranian government and Shoken prior to Shokin's removal. Biden/the US isn't even mentioned.
Here is what bothers me. The prosecutor claimed he was sacked for investigating Burisma. The Biden team says it is nonsense, as Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time and that the prosecutor is fired precisely because he wasn’t active enough in investigating major players, among which is surely Burisma. In other words, Biden wanted Burisma investigated, in spite of the fact it would hurt his son’s cushy position. Quite commendable. If true, of course. So, here is what bothers me: if the Biden’s version is true, why was the investigation into Burisma dropped and never reopened under the new prosecutor? Isn’t that what all is supposed to be about? More active, not less active, investigation into corruption?
According to Bloomberg (Cant find the original, but here is
Reuters' summary) the Burisma investigation was already tabled by the time Shokin was fired, and my further understanding is that it was Burisma's founder that was the primary original target anyway, not the company itself. Perhaps the investigation was simply could by then? (This is with the caveat that I have no idea how ingrained the company itself was with any sort of larger governmental or institutional corruption - maybe there IS no such thing as a wholly innocent corporation in Ukraine - I have no idea)
My interpretation is that no sane new prosecutor would dare to go against a company where a US Vice President’s son is sitting on the board. Especially not after witnessing the power the father just demonstrated in getting rid of the previous prosecutor.
OK - assume that's true. But if the last guy was canned for being corrupt himself as evidenced by NOT prosecuting problematic activity, at that firing came not ONLY at the behest of the Obama administration (via Biden), but also via the greater EU community, that puts the new prosecutor into a rough position. If you don't start prosecuting suspicion activity, the EU guys get all over you again, but if you do, you theoretically annoy Joe Biden. It's an interesting study in diplomacy and power, but so far as I know, no one is alleging that Biden leaned on the guy AFTER Shokin to go easy on Hunter's employer - all of the allegations seem to be that (Joe) Biden wanted Shokin fired because he was going after Hunter, but there just doesn't seem to be much, if any, support for that.
Biden had two options before firing the prosecutor: 1) ask his son to step down 2) recuse himself. He did neither.
So what was the ultimate results of the whole Biden’s anti-corruption crusade? Prosecutor fired, but the main actor in the corruption game, Burisma, walked out scot-free. Much a do about nothing. Were there any other dramatic anti-corruption consequences after the firing? Or it was business as usual in the good old Ukraine?
See above - I don't think Burisma (the company) was ever THE high-value player in the general anti-corruption concerns about Shokin. As per the AlJezeera article, there were apparently a metric ton of bad goings-on that Shokin was allegedly ignoring, hence the concern from the EU community in the first place. In other words, the focus on Burisma and Hunter Biden seems to be blown out of proportion today, because as far as I can tell from contemporary reporting, it was just one of many issues with Shokin and Ukrainian corruption.
