Featured Image Credit: yourNEWS Media Illustration
Newly released State Department communications and intelligence watchdog records reveal previously undisclosed details about U.S. officials’ knowledge of Burisma, concerns surrounding Hunter Biden and potential political bias involving the whistleblower whose complaint triggered President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Newly declassified government records are renewing scrutiny of the testimony and investigative process surrounding President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment, revealing internal diplomatic communications about Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business dealings and previously undisclosed concerns involving the intelligence official whose complaint helped launch the proceedings.
The documents, released Friday, October 16, by the White House Government Transparency Task Force, include State Department emails, diplomatic memoranda and intelligence watchdog records that provide additional context for statements made by witnesses during the House impeachment investigation.
The newly available material raises questions about how much senior American diplomats knew about corruption allegations involving Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden while his father served as vice president.
According to a Just the News investigation published Friday, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch received multiple communications between 2016 and 2019 describing Burisma’s legal problems, its attempts to influence American officials and its efforts to improve its reputation.
The disclosures also revisit concerns expressed by diplomat George Kent about Hunter Biden’s position on the company’s board and raise questions about information provided to congressional investigators concerning the whistleblower’s political views.
The findings have become the basis of a broader examination of six disputed elements of the impeachment investigation, although the existence of additional internal records does not independently establish that witnesses knowingly provided false testimony or that the impeachment allegations were fabricated.
The controversy originated with Trump’s July 25, 2019, telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump sought investigations involving the Bidens and other political matters.
House Democrats subsequently accused Trump of improperly using presidential authority and congressionally approved military assistance to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations that could benefit him politically.
The House impeached Trump in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him in February 2020.
The latest documents focus primarily on information available to American officials before those proceedings began.
One significant issue involves Yovanovitch’s description of Burisma during her October 11, 2019, deposition.
Asked about the company and its connections to Hunter Biden, Yovanovitch characterized the matter as relatively insignificant.
“It just wasn’t a big deal,” she said.
However, diplomatic correspondence now available through declassification and earlier public records requests shows that the embassy repeatedly monitored Burisma’s activities.
The communications concerned founder Mykola Zlochevsky, corruption investigations involving the company, Hunter Biden’s board membership and the work of American consultants retained to engage U.S. officials.
The records indicate that Burisma was more frequently discussed within the embassy than Yovanovitch’s brief description might have suggested.
A second issue involves whether Yovanovitch received specific briefings about the company.
During congressional questioning, she said, “I don’t recall that I was briefed on that.”
Newly disclosed correspondence includes an August 2017 email forwarding the ambassador a memorandum concerning a criminal investigation involving Zlochevsky.
The document described FBI investigative assistance that helped trace nearly $13 million moving through American financial institutions.
Another communication, sent in September 2016 by Kent, informed Yovanovitch that Burisma had retained Blue Star Strategies, an American consulting firm with Democratic political connections, and had appointed Hunter Biden to its board.
The emails establish that information was sent to the ambassador. They do not, by themselves, establish what she subsequently read, remembered or understood when answering congressional questions years later.
The documents also provide a clearer picture of Burisma’s efforts to establish contacts with American diplomats.
In February 2017, Kent forwarded Yovanovitch a meeting request from Cofer Black, a former CIA official who had joined Burisma’s board.
“The Burisma campaign of engagement continues,” Kent wrote.
An April 2017 letter from Yovanovitch to Black also appears among the records, although it remains unclear whether the letter was sent.
Additional correspondence shows that Blue Star Strategies sought access to the ambassador in January 2018 to discuss several issues, including a visa matter.
The communications illustrate Burisma’s efforts to obtain meetings with senior diplomatic officials while facing questions about its reputation and the activities of its founder.
Kent also expressed reservations about a proposal under which Burisma would finance training for Ukrainian prosecutors through an American organization.
The arrangement, he warned, would not “pass the Washington Post sniff test.”
The newly disclosed communications provide evidence of embassy concerns about Burisma’s outreach. They do not establish that U.S. officials granted improper favors in response to the company’s requests.
Another disputed issue concerns Kent’s assessment of Hunter Biden’s position on the energy company’s board.
During November 2019 impeachment testimony, Kent was asked whether a conflict of interest had influenced Obama administration policy involving Ukraine and Burisma.
“In my view, no,” he answered.
Yet a November 22, 2016, communication shows that Kent believed Hunter Biden’s business relationship created difficulties for American anti-corruption diplomacy.
Kent wrote that someone in Washington should discreetly inform then-Vice President Joe Biden that his son’s board membership “undercut” the administration’s anti-corruption message.
The distinction between those statements is important.
Kent’s 2016 warning addressed the appearance of a conflict and its potential effect on the credibility of American diplomacy. His 2019 testimony addressed whether the relationship had actually influenced U.S. policy.
Although the statements raise questions about how the issue was presented, they do not necessarily establish that Kent reversed his position or concealed a proven policy conflict.
The controversy also extends to Biden’s role in the dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
During a December 2015 visit to Kyiv, Biden urged Ukrainian officials to remove Shokin and linked the demand to a substantial American loan guarantee.
At the time, Ukrainian authorities had investigated Burisma and Zlochevsky over corruption allegations. Hunter Biden had joined the company’s board in May 2014.
Biden and other Obama administration officials maintained that pressure to replace Shokin reflected American and international concerns about insufficient anti-corruption enforcement.
However, additional diplomatic records have complicated the chronology of that decision.
A 2015 interagency assessment obtained through public records litigation indicated that Ukraine had made sufficient progress on certain reforms to justify proceeding with another American loan guarantee.
Later reporting also examined whether Biden changed the administration’s immediate approach while traveling to Kyiv.
A Just the News examination of the previously disclosed records addressed disagreements among American officials concerning Ukraine’s reform progress and the timing of Biden’s demands.
The Washington Post subsequently acknowledged that Biden may have “called an audible” concerning Shokin’s removal during the December 2015 trip, a development discussed in reporting on the newspaper’s revised assessment.
Those findings suggest that the policy decision involved more internal complexity than some public descriptions indicated.
They do not independently establish that Biden sought Shokin’s removal to protect Hunter Biden or Burisma, an allegation Biden has denied.
The sixth issue concerns the intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky helped initiate the impeachment investigation.
Newly declassified records compiled by investigators working for former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson describe concerns about the whistleblower’s political views and prior contacts with congressional personnel.
Earlier this year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence alleged that the handling of the whistleblower complaint contributed to a misleading account of the events surrounding Trump’s impeachment.
The declassified investigative memoranda identified the complainant as having a “potential for bias.”
According to the records, the whistleblower acknowledged making critical comments about Republican members of Congress and apologized for initially providing incomplete information about contacts with staff members of the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee.
The memoranda also describe concerns about the complainant’s previous involvement in Biden-era Ukraine policy and discussions about whether information should be withheld from Republicans on the committee.
The whistleblower has been publicly identified in reporting as Eric Ciaramella, a former CIA analyst, although the government’s original complaint process included confidentiality protections intended to shield the complainant’s identity.
The newly available material raises questions about how political considerations were evaluated and disclosed during the inspector general’s review.
However, potential bias does not automatically invalidate a whistleblower complaint. The reliability of the underlying allegations must also be evaluated against independent evidence, including witness testimony and contemporaneous records.
The 2019 impeachment investigation ultimately considered evidence extending beyond the initial complaint, including diplomatic testimony and the White House’s account of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky.
The declassified material therefore adds to the historical record without independently resolving every disputed allegation from the impeachment proceedings.
The central question now concerns whether investigators and lawmakers received a sufficiently complete account of the information available to witnesses and officials at the time.
Records concerning Yovanovitch and Kent demonstrate that senior diplomats discussed Burisma and Hunter Biden’s involvement more extensively than certain portions of the public testimony may have conveyed.
The whistleblower memoranda similarly provide additional information about political concerns evaluated during the preliminary investigation.
Yet determining whether those differences represent faulty recollection, incomplete questioning, legitimate distinctions in interpretation or intentional misrepresentation would require further examination of the complete records and testimony.
The White House Government Transparency Task Force has indicated that additional documents may be released as its review continues.
Those disclosures could provide further context for the impeachment investigation, including the internal handling of diplomatic intelligence and the review of allegations submitted through intelligence community channels.
Seven years after Trump’s first impeachment, the newly released documents have reopened questions about the completeness of the evidence presented to Congress and the public.
Their significance will depend not only on what the records reveal, but also on how the communications compare with the precise questions witnesses were asked and the broader evidence collected during the proceedings.
Original article
Comments