Posted on 11/14/2019 7:56:17 PM PST by Kevin in California
There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.
There’s a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here’s a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.
George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.
Kent agrees today that Burisma should be “fully investigated,” as President Trump has asked.
Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.
Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky’s crimes “go away.” Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.
Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma’s board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.
Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.
Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about “Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member” amid the corruption questions because it “could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President’s office. Kent stated he has “no idea” what the Vice President’s office did about his concerns.
In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)
Kent defended Biden’s action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.
When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.
Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.
Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.
Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are “never held to account” in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is “lots to review.”
Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he’d been there 13 times.
When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated “no.”
When asked, Kent agreed it’s appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.
William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”
Oh, and a beautiful one at that:-)
This lady can write! So glad she left CBS.
Bump
Bttt
... When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.
And the New York Times doesn't see a story here? Thank God for Sharyl Attkisson... ...
DITTO
Can someone tell: procedurally, Schiff’s impeachment proceedings are technically still looking for an actual crime, correct? This is merely an (highly political and media) investigation, yes?
When I read something by her or Solomon I take it as fact.
Refreshing
Ping list ping.
(For any who missed it, there was another good article from her about this mess, posted in this thread: "The president, not diplomats, sets 'official foreign policy".)
“Inquiry” is what Pelousy called it today...inquiring into a crime...in other words, yes, a Search for a crime
The new position is that they (the Dems) don’t actually have to prove a crime. Crime isn’t the standard.
The standard for impeachment is now something unbecoming to the office or improper.
They also (seriously) are suggesting that a mere majority in the Senate is enough to remove Trump. The super-majority, yeah it’s in the Constitution, shouldn’t be the threshold of the equivalent of a ‘no confience’ vote in Parliament.
Rewriting centuries of common law, Dems now say hearsay is not only admissible, but it’s also superior to actual firsthand witnesses.
Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are “never held to account” in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is “lots to review.””Notoriously corrupt Ukraine.” Does any other country fit the bill?
bfl
Seems kind of unusual for a VP to make so many trips to a foreign country, doesn’t it? Especially one where corruption is known to be so rampant.
”Notoriously corrupt Ukraine.” Does any other country fit the bill”?
The United States, China, Mexico, most of Central and South America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe...…..
If this ever goes to a senate trial, RINOs seem to be against calling any witnesses that have anything to so with the Bidens (Graham? Who knows). But in that case Trump’s attorneys could call the Bidens and maybe Brennan and Clapper.
its almost funny how Pelousy claimed to not believe the ‘impeachment’ move was justified, for so very long...
and now that she says she’s ‘doubling down on impeachment....
and openly pushing for it,
the entire “case” has fallen apart...gloriously ...
1. Russia collusion (whatever the hell that was supposed to mean, anyway)... went completely off the agenda, Mueller found zero
2. Ukraine “quid pro quo” (and what would’ve been criminal about that!? we have a treaty with Ukraine that they will help us investigate criminal activity like the Biden/Kerry sale of “access and favors in Wash DC” there) turns out to have been Bidens and Kerry, NOT Trump!
3. even the logic of the very allegation has failed,
if it ever existed. As, it would have been a very good thing, and completely legal too, had PDJT withheld foreign aid gift money there if they had failed to honor their treaty to investigate criminal Bidens/Kerry
so now Pelousy has changed her vocabulary again and is using the word “bribery”— which is AMAZINGLY ironic since its been the D’s (Bidens, Kerry, HilLIARy, etc.) that have been taking foreign bribes in exchange for their sale of American foreign policy, foreign aid, weaponry)....
Pelousy went out on the limb without a safety net..and she’s falling, falling, falling so badly....badly....
this “impeachment” krap will SPLAT really soon, methinks, now that its clear to the American public that its been nothing more than a giant, vindictive pile of lying BS
Did anybody ever suggest that FDR should be impeached because of Harry Hopkins's "irregular diplomacy?" I don't think so. Hopkins went way beyond anything Giuliani did.
This is merely corraboration of Rudy’s preview testimony to Steponallofus on Sept. 29.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.