By John Solomon and Steven Richards
While most Americans were preparing for the November 2015 Thanksgiving holiday, top policy advisers to Joe Biden were scurrying to put the finishing touches on the then-vice president’s upcoming trip to Kyiv where he planned to deliver a momentous shock to the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.
Just a month earlier, a task force of top State, Treasury and Justice Department officials had decided that Ukraine and its new top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had made enough progress on anti-corruption reforms for the country to receive a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee.
They drafted a term sheet for the delivery of the new aid to then-President Poroshenko during Biden’s December 2015 trip to Ukraine, and were making plans to invite Shokin’s top staff to Washington in January for a high-level meeting. Shokin himself even got a letter from the State Department declaring it was “impressed” with his reform efforts.
But the vice president and his top advisers on Ukraine, including then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, had a very different plan that began unfolding that Thanksgiving holiday week. In fact, it was an about-face when it came to Shokin’s plight, according to two “goals and objectives” memos drafted four days before Thanksgiving on Nov. 22, 2015 and obtained by Just the News.
“There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General’s Office, including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem,” the memos stated.
A U.S. intervention into the domestic affairs of an ally like Ukraine was rare and intrusive, and the meddling has had years of fallout. And it turns out, according to documents obtained years later by Just the News, that Joe Biden and his son Hunter were both intensely focused on the same prosecutor at that same moment.
A few blocks away from the White House, Hunter Biden and his associates were trying to hire a crisis communications firm to deal with Shokin’s decision to revive a corruption investigation of the Burisma Holdings company where Hunter Biden served as a board member and received $1 million a year in compensation, according to documents reviewed by Just the News.
Former business partner Devon Archer recently testified to Congress that Burisma was pressuring Hunter Biden in fall 2015 to deal with the fallout of Shokin’s probe and to secure help from the Biden family’s contacts in Washington.
The documents reviewed by Just the News show Hunter Biden and Burisma got word in late September 2015 that one and eventually two major U.S. news organizations – The Wall Street Journal and New York Times – were reporting possible stories on the Shokin probe and how Hunter’s association might be hurting his father’s efforts to root out corruption in Ukraine. The stories threatened to land just as his father was going to Kyiv to meet Poroshenko.
Hunter Biden and his associates, the memos show, would hire Blue Star Strategies to deal with the fallout. Eventually Joe Biden’s own vice president office would devise a statement to be released just before Biden traveled to Ukraine for that December 2015 trip. And Hunter Biden also reached out to a top energy adviser to his father, who would end up on Joe Biden’s trip.
The following story chronicles the efforts of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden to deal with Viktor Shokin on parallel tracks that would eventually thrust both the United States and Ukraine into five years of scandal that have cast a pall over two consecutive American presidents.
Many of the documents it is based on were not public during Donald Trump’s first impeachment and conflict with the Democrat narratives that have dominated since. Here’s the story:
Joe Biden’s team makes an abrupt change to U.S. policy
The decision by Joe Biden and his closest policymakers to try to force Shokin’s firing evolved over several days before he left for the December 2015 trip to Kyiv. For weeks beforehand, U.S. officials at State, Treasury and Justice recommended Ukraine get its $1 billion in loan guarantees because Shokin’s office had made adequate progress in anticorruption reforms.
The two Nov. 22, 2015 memos – while demanding Shokin’s ouster – still urged the vice president to offer the $1 billion loan guarantee during his trip.
“Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk will be looking for tangible signs of U.S. support to assist the Ukrainian people during these difficult times, facilitate further reforms, and help with efforts to defend against Russian aggression,” the memos stated. “You will sign our third billion-dollar loan guarantee and publicly announce FY 15 U.S. assistance for the first time: $189,035,756 — which does not include security assistance (previously announced separately).”
By the time Biden got to Kyiv on Dec. 8-9, 2015, he had further altered the plan, deciding to threaten withholding the loan guarantees until Poroshenko fired Shokin, something he would brag about doing in a 2018 video tape.
The abrupt shift came as a surprise to Poroshenko and, it turns out, the Nov. 22, 2015 memos were even a bit of a surprise to Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, according to testimony Pyatt later gave Senate investigators.
“I can’t help you on that,” Pyatt told investigators for the Senate Homeland Security Committee when he was shown copies of the Nov. 22, 2015 memos. “If you look on the clearance page you will see that I actually didn’t see these documents until you guys sent them to me.”
Pyatt told Sen. Ron Johnson’s investigators in 2020 that he couldn’t remember many of the exact details of how Joe Biden came to force Shokin’s firing but he recollected a shift had occurred at some point.
“What I can tell you is that there was a gradual evolution in the thinking of the interagency community about these issues,” he testified.
Pyatt would later concede the decision to withhold the $1 billion loan guarantee and try to force Shokin’s firing may likely have been a matter of a political principal like Biden deciding to change policy.
“This is an imperfect art,” Pyatt would tell the Senate investigators. “And what it ultimately comes down to is the principal’s decision, and, you know, in this case how the Vice President based–and there would typically, before a big trip like this, a day or two before he got on the airplane there would have been a deputies’ or a principals’ level discussion.“I would imagine, based on my conversations with him that the Vice President also would have a discussion with the President, and saying, “Hey, boss, this is what I’m doing,” and, you know, take it from there,” he added.
There is nothing illegal about a president or vice president switching policies from the recommendations of career staff. And to date congtessional investigators have not uncovered any evidence that Hunter Biden asked his father to take such action.
But in this case, Joe Biden has maintained since the 2019 impeachment case against Trump that his leveraging of the $1 billion loan guarantee to force the firing of Shokin was simply a matter of carrying out U.S. policy crafted by career officials.
But as reported Monday by Just the News, the career officials at State, Justice, and Treasury actually recommended Ukraine receive the $1 billion because Shokin’s office was making adequate progress in reforming the fight against endemic corruption in Ukraine. Even Biden’s own talking points recommended he offer the loan guarantee.
He eventually did the opposite.
Adding to the heartburn, Biden’s decision was done with the full knowledge that his son Hunter Biden was serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings whose owner Mykola Zlochevsky was being investigated by Shokin’s office.
State Department officials testified during Trump’s impeachment that Hunter Biden’s role on the Burisma board while his father oversaw Ukrainian anticorruption policy for the United States posed at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Joe Biden’s team crafted answers to deflect media attention from that issue, the memos show,.
One official, George Kent, went further in a classified email published Monday by Just the News, declaring that Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma directly “undercut’ U.S. anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Hunter Biden’s efforts to thwart Shokin parallel father’s trip to Ukraine
Ironically, Hunter Biden’s efforts to deal with Shokin were triggered in part by the same man his father’s administration had sent to be the chief diplomat to Ukraine, the ambassador who was cut out of the November 2015 memos from the vice president’s office.
In mid-September 2015, Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa criticizing Shokin’s office for failing to pursue alleged Burisma corruption in the period before Shokin took over the prosecutor general’s office.
The speech appeared to have two impacts. First, Shokin’s office launched an effort to re-seize the assets of Burisma Holdings founder and Hunter Biden’s boss, Mykola Zlochevsky. Secondly, American news media began inquiring about Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma and Zlochevsky in the midst of such a corruption inquiry.
The first inquiry came from Wall Street Journal journalist Paul Somme on Sept. 30, 2015. Coincidentally that was the exact same day that the Interagency Policy Committee comprised of top federal officials met and determined that Shokin’s office had made adequate reforms to justify Joe Biden giving a new $1 billion loan guarantee.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iHee2c7IxHcJ:https://themessenger.com/politics/house-speaker-says-republicans-could-launch-biden-impeachment-inquiry-as-soon-as-september&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Not holding my breath
The smoking gun. biden is through. He has to be impeached. Any senator voting not to convict will be turfed out.
Democrats simply will not see the evidence. While they will condemn Trump or any other Republican with NO evidence, they will gouge their own eyes out rather than look upon any evidence of Democrat corruption.
If there weren’t convincing evidence for each count in the indictments, they wouldn’t have gotten beyond the Grand Juries.
From United States Courts; Types of Juries:
Except when Democrats abuse the process and turn it into political theater.
You have said many stupid things, Comrade Greggie, but this one has to be at the top of your stupid statements list.
Would you care to explain why? Nope, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
How about because every one of the cases is based on political persecution, not an actual crime? Trump’s NDA was fully legal, his documents were declassified, there was no insurrection and Trump didn’t incite violence and presenting evidence of election fraud and demanding it be investigated is not a crime.
Grand juries are presented evidence by the prosecutor in the case. There is no representation on the part of the defense. greg is utterly stupid or outright lying when he asserts the holiness of a grand jury. Otherwise the phrase’ ” you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich” would have never been elicited.
Greg and other morons are really impressed with the DNC scoreboarding. Meanwhile, people with eyes, ears and brains see the evidence of a corrupt DOJ and Democrat prosecutors who have no respect for the law or the Constitution waging political lawfare against a strong, capable, successful candidate they know the cannot defeat in a fair election just piling up higher and higher.
Everything greg does here is performative. . Most people here are educated beyond greg and do not take his bullshit seriously.
His performances fall flat.
There’s no representation on the part of the defense because there are no charges at that point. It’s a process to evaluate evidence to determine if charges are warranted.
We know. We KNOW. The point is, it’s not that difficult to get a grand jury recommendation for charges. Duh.
But if the prosecutors decide to LIE, then they can easily make their case for charges and Democrats do nothing BUT lie.
Grand Juries do not present exculpatory evidence and when the Democrats have the platform to lie, they don’t hold back. It’s been clearly proven ALL the accusations are based solely on the political need to knock Trump out of the campaign.
Except when Democrats abuse the process and turn it into political theater.