web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "George Kent"

NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015

Westlake Legal Group AS NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015 Ukraine Trump-Ukraine testimony State Department Politics official Joe Biden hunter biden George Kent Front Page Stories Front Page donald trump diplomat democrats dealings corruption Allow Media Exception adam schiff 2015

I’m going to guess this isn’t what Adam Schiff wanted to come out of his latest “hearing.”

A State Department official named George Kent, who served during the Obama administration as well, was called in to add nothing of substance to what we already know regarding Donald Trump and Ukraine. Surprisingly though, he managed to drop a piece of new information and it had to do with Hunter Biden.

Namely, that Kent had approached Biden in 2015 about the issues with his son’s dealing and was rebuffed.

This via Fox News.

A State Department official focused on Ukraine policy told Congress this week he raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas firm in 2015, but was rebuffed by former Vice President Joe Biden’s staff which said the office was preoccupied with Beau Biden’s cancer battle, Fox News has confirmed.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before committees spearheading the formal House impeachment inquiry, told congressional investigators that he had qualms about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

Remember, Biden has repeatedly claimed that he didn’t know of his son’s dealings. We know he’s lying in regards to ever talking to Hunter about them, but now we know they were also brought to his attention through official channels as well.

Certainly, there is some leeway to be given to Joe Biden, as he was dealing with his late son’s illness at the time. But his entire staff wasn’t and he was still the Vice President. Such matters are not wiped away because of personal trials. It would have been very easy for Biden’s Chief of Staff (or someone else) to handle the issue. Further, we know that Hunter Biden’s dealings continued well after his brother’s death.

The report continues.

A congressional source confirmed to Fox News on Friday that Kent testified that when he brought his concerns to the office of the vice president in 2016, his staff “blew him off” and ignored the issue involving the younger Biden’s role at the firm. The Post first reported that the staff said they did not have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue, as his other son, Beau Biden, was battling cancer. Beau Biden died in 2015.

Biden’s campaign responded to this story on Friday by ripping into President Trump. “Donald Trump’s unprecedently corrupt administration is melting down because of the scandal he touched-off by trying to get Ukraine to lie about Joe Biden–and as the vice president said yesterday, he should release his tax returns or shut up,” a Biden campaign spokesperson told Fox News. “On Joe Biden’s watch, the U.S. made eradicating corruption a centerpiece of our policies toward Ukraine including achieving the removal of an inept prosecutor who shielded wrongdoers from accountability.”

I have no idea what Biden’s ranting response has to do with the actual story here. This isn’t about Donald Trump. It’s about Joe Biden lying about his knowledge of his son’s shady dealings and brushing aside concerns being voiced by the State Department. It should also be noted that at no point did Trump try to “get Ukraine to lie about Joe Biden.” That in and of itself is just a blatant lie. Trump asked that Ukraine get to the bottom of the younger Biden’s dealings. He did not ask them to lie or manufacture information.

There’s another bit of information in this piece that’s interesting as well.

However, Kent testified that while Shokin faced accusations of corruption, his replacement, Lutsenko, did too and that both ex-prosecutors were godfathers to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s children. However, according to sources, Kent said that while the United States pushed hard for Shokin to be fired, no one ever pushed for Lutsenko to be fired.

Lutsenko ended up closing the cases into Burisma and other corruption within Ukraine. Coincidentally, I’m sure, the Obama administration had no problem keeping him on the job despite his checkered history and the fact that he just happened to be helping out Joe Biden and his son in the process.

Kent’s testimony does two things. It further illustrates that there’s nothing to this Trump-Ukraine matter past what’s in the call transcript, which we already have. No official is going to magically provide context we don’t already know as we have the actual words of the call. That’s been the common theme throughout this ordeal. It’s nothing but political theater. More importantly though, it breaths new life into the allegations against the Bidens.

That’s something I’m sure Adam Schiff wasn’t counting on.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015 Ukraine Trump-Ukraine testimony State Department Politics official Joe Biden hunter biden George Kent Front Page Stories Front Page donald trump diplomat democrats dealings corruption Allow Media Exception adam schiff 2015  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Breaking: Impeachment witness says he tried to warn about Ukraine influence — with Biden

Westlake Legal Group biden-cfr Breaking: Impeachment witness says he tried to warn about Ukraine influence — with Biden Ukraine-Gate Ukraine The Blog State Department Nancy Pelosi Joe Biden influence peddling hunter biden George Kent Burisma

Impeachment, as it turns out, cuts any number of ways. In their attempt to prove that Donald Trump tried to strongarm Ukraine into digging up dirt on Joe Biden, House Democrats dug some up on their own. The Washington Post reports that a career State Department officer tried to warn officials in the Obama administration about the conflict of interest that Hunter Biden’s work created in Ukraine and with efforts to target corruption. When those warnings reached the Vice President’s office in early 2015, Biden’s team shut them down:

A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.

Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.

The timing on this is very instructive. Supposedly Biden didn’t have the “bandwidth” in early 2015 to deal with the problem, but by late 2015 Biden was all over it — by his own admission. Last year, Biden bragged to the Council of Foreign Relations about how he’d used the leverage of a billion dollars in US aid in December 2015 to get then-Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko to fire his general prosecutor, over Biden’s dissatisfaction with progress in anti-corruption probes:

BIDEN: Well, I was, not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over convincing our team, our, others to convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, try to guess the 12th, 13th time to Kiev, and I was going to, supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So they said they had, they were walking out to a press conference, and I said no, I said I’m not going to, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said. I said call him. I said I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said you’re not getting the billion, and I’m going to be leaving here, and I think it was what, six hours. I looked. I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.

According to Kent’s testimony, this was months after the State Department career officer warned that Biden’s involvement would create a conflict of interest. Biden’s office, at the very least, would have known that the issue had already come up in the US diplomatic corps, and why wouldn’t it? Biden was pressing to get a prosecutor fired over corruption while his son held a very high-profile position for one of the oligarchs suspected of corruption. Regardless of what Biden intended, what were the Ukrainians supposed to think about Biden’s pressure and his leveraging of US aid over the issue? It’s all but guaranteed that the message wasn’t “please go after my ne’er-do-well son‘s patron.”

Furthermore, the Post interviewed an anonymous Biden aide from that period, who largely defends the former VP on charges of conflicts of interest. However, he also throws some cold water on the excuse Kent was given at the time:

The aide said that Joe Biden was dealing with a lot during Beau Biden’s bout with cancer, but that it had a minimal impact on his work.

“Day to day the vice president was at work and he was pretty focused,” the aide said. “Does that mean it’s inconceivable that someone said, ‘Hey look it’s not the time to raise a family issue?’ I guess it’s conceivable. But I never saw evidence he wasn’t capable of doing the VP role and dealing with his family at the same time.”

In other words, Kent got pushed aside because no one cared at the time about quid pro quos and the appearance of impropriety. Just three years earlier, Biden’s boss had gotten caught on camera and a live mic asking Dmitri Medvedev to back off on contentious issues until after his 2012 election, when he would have “more flexibility” to meet the Russian positions. Medvedev had then helpfully offered to transmit that request to Putin. In 2015, leverage and quid pro quos were apparently all the rage.

House Democrats stepped onto a land mine with Kent. They may step a little more carefully after this, but it raises questions about what kind of witnesses Senate Republicans might call when the trial begins after impeachment — or maybe if after this. George Kent’s little bombshell should have Nancy Pelosi reconsidering whether the alea has truly been iacta’d, and just how much she’s willing to expose the previous administration’s own peccadilloes in their fervor to get revenge over the 2016 election.

The post Breaking: Impeachment witness says he tried to warn about Ukraine influence — with Biden appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group biden-cfr-300x162 Breaking: Impeachment witness says he tried to warn about Ukraine influence — with Biden Ukraine-Gate Ukraine The Blog State Department Nancy Pelosi Joe Biden influence peddling hunter biden George Kent Burisma  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’

Westlake Legal Group stop_the_lies Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’ Ukraine U.S. Embassy in Ukraine President Trump Marie Yovanovitch Impeachment of President Trump George Kent Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was recalled in May, two months ahead of schedule. On Friday, she testified before Congress in what was called a “transcribed interview.” She was not put under oath, however, if she were to make any false or misleading statements, “the same penalties would attach.” The session was closed to the public.

If one were to read the mainstream media accounts of Yovanovitch’s testimony, one would think she handed House Democrats a new reason to impeach the President. One headline screams, “Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony on Trump cracks the wall of silence.” Another says, “Today’s testimony from Yovanovitch was a key moment in the Ukraine scandal.”

These media claims are based on her 10-page prepared opening statement, which can be viewed here.

She states that she was ousted from her position over “false and unfounded claims” and that the State Department was under pressure from President Trump to remove her. She wrote, “Although I understand that I served at the pleasure of the President, I was nevertheless incredulous that the U.S. government chose to remove an Ambassador based, as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.”

In her statement, she lists events that occurred both before and after her tenure.

Then, she addresses events that occurred during her tenure. She writes:

I want to categorically state that I have never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a “do not prosecute” list is completely false—a story that Mr. Lutsenko, himself, has since retracted.

This was news to me. In March, investigative reporter John Solomon interviewed Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. He told Solomon that there was tension in his relationship with most U.S. Embassy personnel. He said that, during the Obama era, Yovanovitch gave him a list of individuals “he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.” This was the “do not prosecute” list which she refers to above. I have not heard that Lutsenko had retracted this allegation. In fact, Solomon referred to this only recently in a different article.

I searched for evidence that Lutsenko had retracted and finally found this in an ABC Go article.

Then, in a March interview with a conservative columnist at The Hill newspaper, Lutsenko offered a new explosive allegation against Yovanovitch: In their first meeting, Lutsenko alleged, the ambassador gave him a “do-not-prosecute list” — a list of Ukrainians that the Ukrainian government could not investigate.

Lutsenko also said he had opened an investigation into whether Ukrainian officials tried to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 presidential election by leaking a series of financial documents linking Trump’s then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to corrupt proceeds. Lutsenko has since retracted some of his previous statements, particularly his claims about Biden.

Nevertheless, despite questions about Lutsenko’s credibility, Trump posted the reporting to his Twitter account within hours of it being published.

Victoria Toensing, an outspoken Trump ally who has worked with Giuliani and Parnas, also posted the reporting to her Twitter page, writing, “The real collusion began in Ukraine. U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.”

Five days later, the conservative columnist who published Lutsenko’s claims sent an email to Parnas and Toensing, forwarding them a preview of his upcoming report that would allege further political bias at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and offer new alleged details on the purported “do-not-prosecute list” that Lutsenko claimed Yovanovitch gave him.

The next day, the website Medium published a story by an unknown author named “Tony Sealy,” noting The Hill newspaper’s previous reporting and disclosing what it claimed was the purported “do-not-prosecute list.” But, according to internal emails described to ABC News, officials inside the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine almost immediately recognized it as “a totally manufactured, fake list” and a “classic disinfo play,” as one senior official wrote at the time.

“One key sign of it being fake is that most of the names are misspelled in English — we would never spell most that way,” a top diplomat at the embassy, George Kent, wrote. And the embassy could find no evidence that “Tony Sealy” even existed.

“This list appears to be an effort by Lutsenko to inoculate himself for why he did not pursue corrupt [former] associates and political allies,” Kent said, adding that Lutsenko wanted “to claim that the U.S. told him not to.”

“Complete poppycock,” Kent added.

Nevertheless, two weeks later, Giuliani went on Fox News to claim Mueller’s “phony investigation” stemmed from Yovanovitch.

Around the same time, Lutsenko indicated in an interview with a Russian-language news outlet that his initial account of Yovanovitch giving him a “do-not-prosecute list” was not accurate.

That explanation makes my head spin. They give us an approximate time, they don’t name the news outlet and they say only that his statement was not accurate. As Kent says, this is “complete poppycock.”

If Lutsenko had truly retracted his statement, we would have heard about it and not from a Russian-language news outlet. The truth is that many officials inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev were corrupt. They were in the tank for Hillary and now they have to cover their tracks. And this includes then-embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent.

Solomon wrote an informative article in March which addresses Kent’s corruption. (It can be viewed here.) I posted about his article at the time and here are some of the highlights.

Lutsenko provided Solomon with a copy of a letter from a U.S. official named George Kent, which can be viewed here, asking him “to stand down on the misappropriation-of-funds case.” The letter said, “We are gravely concerned about this investigation for which we see no basis.”

Solomon said that, several day later, “the State Department issued a statement declaring that it no longer financially supports Lutsenko’s office in its anti-corruption mission and considers his allegation about the do-not-prosecute list “an outright fabrication.”

In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee Chairman, Rep. Peter Sessions (R-TX) wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking him “to recall the current U.S. ambassador, alleging that she made disparaging statements about President Trump.” This letter can be viewed here.

Sessions wrote that Marie Yovanovich, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, “has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration in a way that might call for the [her] expulsion.”

Solomon says that Lutsenko and Kulyk have been trying for a year to present their evidence to officials at the Sessions/Rosenstein led DOJ, however, not a single official they’ve contacted has shone any interest in pursuing the claims.

The men then decided to travel to the U.S. to speak with new Attorney General William Barr directly about their findings.

However, their attempts to obtain visas have been thwarted repeatedly by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a highly partisan Democrat. Kulyk told Solomon, “We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States. However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

Here are a few more of her disclaimers:

* Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President’s orders “since he was going to be impeached.” That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.

* Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.

* I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.

* With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him—a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani’s motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.

* Finally, after being asked by the Department in early March to extend my tour until 2020, I was then abruptly told in late April to come back to Washington from Ukraine “on the next plane.” You will understandably want to ask why my posting ended so suddenly. I wanted to learn that too, and I tried to find out. I met with the Deputy Secretary of State,

Yovanovitch’s prepared statement didn’t move the needle one way or the other. Naturally, she denies all allegations of wrong doing. We didn’t really expect her to fess up to everything at this point.

Although Yovanovitch was a creature of the deep state, she wasn’t a major player. She, and many like her, were facilitators. And they were necessary.

The post Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group stop_the_lies-300x300 Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’ Ukraine U.S. Embassy in Ukraine President Trump Marie Yovanovitch Impeachment of President Trump George Kent Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’

Westlake Legal Group stop_the_lies Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’ Ukraine U.S. Embassy in Ukraine President Trump Marie Yovanovitch Impeachment of President Trump George Kent Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was recalled in May, two months ahead of schedule. On Friday, she testified before Congress in what was called a “transcribed interview.” She was not put under oath, however, if she were to make any false or misleading statements, “the same penalties would attach.” The session was closed to the public.

If one were to read the mainstream media accounts of Yovanovitch’s testimony, one would think she handed House Democrats a new reason to impeach the President. One headline screams, “Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony on Trump cracks the wall of silence.” Another says, “Today’s testimony from Yovanovitch was a key moment in the Ukraine scandal.”

These media claims are based on her 10-page prepared opening statement, which can be viewed here.

She states that she was ousted from her position over “false and unfounded claims” and that the State Department was under pressure from President Trump to remove her. She wrote, “Although I understand that I served at the pleasure of the President, I was nevertheless incredulous that the U.S. government chose to remove an Ambassador based, as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.”

In her statement, she lists events that occurred both before and after her tenure.

Then, she addresses events that occurred during her tenure. She writes:

I want to categorically state that I have never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a “do not prosecute” list is completely false—a story that Mr. Lutsenko, himself, has since retracted.

This was news to me. In March, investigative reporter John Solomon interviewed Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. He told Solomon that there was tension in his relationship with most U.S. Embassy personnel. He said that, during the Obama era, Yovanovitch gave him a list of individuals “he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.” This was the “do not prosecute” list which she refers to above. I have not heard that Lutsenko had retracted this allegation. In fact, Solomon referred to this only recently in a different article.

I searched for evidence that Lutsenko had retracted and finally found this in an ABC Go article.

Then, in a March interview with a conservative columnist at The Hill newspaper, Lutsenko offered a new explosive allegation against Yovanovitch: In their first meeting, Lutsenko alleged, the ambassador gave him a “do-not-prosecute list” — a list of Ukrainians that the Ukrainian government could not investigate.

Lutsenko also said he had opened an investigation into whether Ukrainian officials tried to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 presidential election by leaking a series of financial documents linking Trump’s then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to corrupt proceeds. Lutsenko has since retracted some of his previous statements, particularly his claims about Biden.

Nevertheless, despite questions about Lutsenko’s credibility, Trump posted the reporting to his Twitter account within hours of it being published.

Victoria Toensing, an outspoken Trump ally who has worked with Giuliani and Parnas, also posted the reporting to her Twitter page, writing, “The real collusion began in Ukraine. U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.”

Five days later, the conservative columnist who published Lutsenko’s claims sent an email to Parnas and Toensing, forwarding them a preview of his upcoming report that would allege further political bias at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and offer new alleged details on the purported “do-not-prosecute list” that Lutsenko claimed Yovanovitch gave him.

The next day, the website Medium published a story by an unknown author named “Tony Sealy,” noting The Hill newspaper’s previous reporting and disclosing what it claimed was the purported “do-not-prosecute list.” But, according to internal emails described to ABC News, officials inside the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine almost immediately recognized it as “a totally manufactured, fake list” and a “classic disinfo play,” as one senior official wrote at the time.

“One key sign of it being fake is that most of the names are misspelled in English — we would never spell most that way,” a top diplomat at the embassy, George Kent, wrote. And the embassy could find no evidence that “Tony Sealy” even existed.

“This list appears to be an effort by Lutsenko to inoculate himself for why he did not pursue corrupt [former] associates and political allies,” Kent said, adding that Lutsenko wanted “to claim that the U.S. told him not to.”

“Complete poppycock,” Kent added.

Nevertheless, two weeks later, Giuliani went on Fox News to claim Mueller’s “phony investigation” stemmed from Yovanovitch.

Around the same time, Lutsenko indicated in an interview with a Russian-language news outlet that his initial account of Yovanovitch giving him a “do-not-prosecute list” was not accurate.

That explanation makes my head spin. They give us an approximate time, they don’t name the news outlet and they say only that his statement was not accurate. As Kent says, this is “complete poppycock.”

If Lutsenko had truly retracted his statement, we would have heard about it and not from a Russian-language news outlet. The truth is that many officials inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev were corrupt. They were in the tank for Hillary and now they have to cover their tracks. And this includes then-embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent.

Solomon wrote an informative article in March which addresses Kent’s corruption. (It can be viewed here.) I posted about his article at the time and here are some of the highlights.

Lutsenko provided Solomon with a copy of a letter from a U.S. official named George Kent, which can be viewed here, asking him “to stand down on the misappropriation-of-funds case.” The letter said, “We are gravely concerned about this investigation for which we see no basis.”

Solomon said that, several day later, “the State Department issued a statement declaring that it no longer financially supports Lutsenko’s office in its anti-corruption mission and considers his allegation about the do-not-prosecute list “an outright fabrication.”

In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee Chairman, Rep. Peter Sessions (R-TX) wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking him “to recall the current U.S. ambassador, alleging that she made disparaging statements about President Trump.” This letter can be viewed here.

Sessions wrote that Marie Yovanovich, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, “has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration in a way that might call for the [her] expulsion.”

Solomon says that Lutsenko and Kulyk have been trying for a year to present their evidence to officials at the Sessions/Rosenstein led DOJ, however, not a single official they’ve contacted has shone any interest in pursuing the claims.

The men then decided to travel to the U.S. to speak with new Attorney General William Barr directly about their findings.

However, their attempts to obtain visas have been thwarted repeatedly by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a highly partisan Democrat. Kulyk told Solomon, “We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States. However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

Here are a few more of her disclaimers:

* Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President’s orders “since he was going to be impeached.” That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.

* Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.

* I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.

* With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him—a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani’s motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.

* Finally, after being asked by the Department in early March to extend my tour until 2020, I was then abruptly told in late April to come back to Washington from Ukraine “on the next plane.” You will understandably want to ask why my posting ended so suddenly. I wanted to learn that too, and I tried to find out. I met with the Deputy Secretary of State,

Yovanovitch’s prepared statement didn’t move the needle one way or the other. Naturally, she denies all allegations of wrong doing. We didn’t really expect her to fess up to everything at this point.

Although Yovanovitch was a creature of the deep state, she wasn’t a major player. She, and many like her, were facilitators. And they were necessary.

The post Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group stop_the_lies-300x300 Ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Couldn’t Believe She’d Been Recalled; Claims were ‘False and Unfounded’ Ukraine U.S. Embassy in Ukraine President Trump Marie Yovanovitch Impeachment of President Trump George Kent Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier

 

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-1-620x317 Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier Yuriy Lutsenko volodymyr zelensky Viktor Shokin. U.S. Embassy in Kiev President Trump Obama Administration Mueller Investigation Marie Yovanovitch John Solomon Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump hunter biden Hillary Clinton Hillary Cinton George Soros George Kent Front Page Stories donald trump dnc democrats Dan Bongino corruption Congress collusion Campaigns Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Alexandra Chalupa Abuse of Power 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., departs the Capitol en route to a speaking event in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. Pelosi will meet with her caucus later as more House Democrats are urging an impeachment inquiry amid reports that President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Some of us are old enough to remember the Looney Tunes classic series, “Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner.” In every episode, Wile E. Coyote has a new idea for how he will finally catch Roadrunner, but the bird is simply too fast and the Coyote never succeeds. Most of the time, the plan backfires and leaves the Coyote wounded and angry. But that doesn’t stop him from trying again.

This morning, the whistleblower’s complaint was released. Given that the transcript of the actual conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed quite benign, the seriousness of the allegations and the tone of the complaint came as a surprise. Our whistleblower has managed to extract an extraordinary amount of material from a pretty mild phone call.

To me, the past week feels eerily similar to the beginning of the Russian collusion investigation. The allegations in the whistleblower’s complaint  are difficult to believe. Instead of Russian collusion, it’s become Ukrainian collusion. And an anonymous whistleblower complaint has replaced the Steele dossier.

The whistleblower wrote that “over the course of four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts.” Okay, so the whistleblower submitted his complaint on August 12th and had worked on it for four months.

That would take us back to the first half of April.

On April 1st, The Hill’s John Solomon broke the story about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings. He wrote:

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

Until this time, no one had tied Joe Biden’s boast about threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the Ukrainian President fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, to his son’s involvement with Burisma.

Note: Solomon appeared on “Hannity” last night and said he has obtained 450 pages of documents from “the State Department and Hunter Biden’s “legal team” demonstrating that the attorneys were working to stop an investigation launched by then-Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin into principals of Burisma.” He will present his story tonight on “Hannity.”

In March, Solomon interviewed Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin, and came away with extraordinary stories of corruption within the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, originating from the State Department.

In April 2016, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s office was investigating a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC). This organization was co-founded by the Obama administration and George Soros. The concern was that $4.4 million the U.S. had sent to help fight corruption in Ukraine had been improperly diverted.

Shortly before Lutsenko took office, then-U.S. Embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Prosecutor General’s office asking them to end the investigation. Kent made it clear that “U.S. officials had no concerns about how the U.S. aid had been spent.”

Soon after taking office, Lutsenko was summoned to the U.S. Embassy to meet the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. According to Lutsenko, Yovanovitch handed him “a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The embassy, of course, responded that the claim was a fabrication and a sign that corruption is alive and well inside Ukraine. (I posted about this story here.) Solomon wrote:

But Kent’s letter unequivocally shows the embassy did press Ukrainian prosecutors to back off what normally would be considered an internal law enforcement matter inside a sovereign country. And more than a half-dozen U.S. and Ukrainian sources confirmed to me the AntAC case wasn’t the only one in which American officials exerted pressure on Ukrainian investigators in 2016.

When I asked State to explain the letter and inclusion of the Soros-connected names during the meeting, it demurred. “As a general rule, we don’t read out private diplomatic meetings,” it responded. “Ambassador Yovanovitch represents the President of the United States in Ukraine, and America stands behind her and her statements.”

Second, the AntAC anecdote highlights a little-known fact that the pursuit of foreign corruption has resulted in an unusual alliance between the U.S. government and a political mega-donor.

If this account is correct, the Obama administration pressured a foreign government to drop an investigation into an organization they had co-founded along with activist George Soros. They were interested in preventing American taxpayers from learning how their tax dollars were being spent as well as concealing their collaboration with Soros. But, above all, they were each doing their part to insure that Hillary Clinton won the presidency.

The most serious corruption of all involved pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians and the DNC. Fox News contributor and author Dan Bongino and Solomon stand out for their ability to recognize the coordination between corrupt pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians and the DNC. Although Clinton lost the election, the effects of their interference can still be felt today. Especially for Paul Manafort.

To gain a better understanding of what happened, it’s helpful to know the backstory. No one does a better job of this than Bongino in his book “Spygate,” which was published in the late fall of 2018. He lays out the story of the real election interference that took place in 2016.

This story starts with the targeting of Paul Manafort by a pro-Western Ukrainian lawyer and activist named Alexandra Chalupa. This woman had worked as a consultant for the DNC and for Democratic politicians including several Clinton campaign officials. Between 2004 and 2016, she had earned $412,000 from the DNC, but left to focus on researching or rather “destroying” Manafort. Chalupa had “watched him since 2014.”

According to Bongino:

The moment Manafort joined the Trump team, Chalupa alerted the DNC of the “threat” of Russian influence. Chalupa’s sister, Andrea, spread the word on a Ukrainian television show calling Manafort’s hiring a “huge deal” and describing him as the “puppet master of some of the most vile dictators around the world.” His hiring, she said sent a “very, very, very, very, very serious warning bell going off.” This fear was rooted in the belief that Manafort was the mastermind behind Yanukovych’s corruption.

Chalupa was a woman on a mission. Determined to broadcast her message to the world, she began by enlisting the help of journalists. Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff came on board and began writing a series of articles which portrayed both Manafort and the Trump campaign in a rather nefarious light. Her strategy was quite effective.

Chalupa’s smear campaign involved journalists and diplomats as well as contacts inside the DNC. She obviously had many contacts from her years in Washington and her message was easy to sell.

Bongino reported on the infamous black ledger and the role played by pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians in Paul Manafort’s downfall.

Politico writers Kenneth Vogel and David Stern interviewed Alexandra Chalupa for their January 2017 article. She told them she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. She also said that Ukrainian government officials gave her information to pass along to the DNC. She later denied both of these statements.

Recall that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had previously bailed out the DNC financially and essentially controlled it.

The scope of the Democrat’s interference in the 2016 was breathtaking and beyond the scope of this post. I wrote in detail about this here.

Another piece of the puzzle involves Nellie Ohr who worked for Fusion GPS along with Christopher Steele. During her testimony last summer, she told lawmakers that a major source of the information she provided to the FBI was a Ukrainian official.

Suffice it to say that, by the spring of 2019, a pretty clear picture of the Democrats’ collusion with Ukrainians to tip the election to Clinton had formed.

The Mueller report hadn’t produced the result Democrats had anticipated. William Barr had appointed John Durham to open an investigation into the origins of the bogus Russian collusion probe. And, at the time, it was thought that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on alleged FISA abuse by the FBI, would be released imminently.

Hence, ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Ukrainian Collusion Scandal.

Could this be the Democrat’s newest plan to finally catch that damn bird, once and for all?

The post Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-1-300x153 Chapter 2: An Anonymous Whistleblower Complaint Replaces the Steele Dossier Yuriy Lutsenko volodymyr zelensky Viktor Shokin. U.S. Embassy in Kiev President Trump Obama Administration Mueller Investigation Marie Yovanovitch John Solomon Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump hunter biden Hillary Clinton Hillary Cinton George Soros George Kent Front Page Stories donald trump dnc democrats Dan Bongino corruption Congress collusion Campaigns Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Alexandra Chalupa Abuse of Power 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com