trump impeachment watch thread

[SnakeBoy]

“I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

[Pavlov]

“I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

Easy enough to talk to those people.

And where's the actual transcript?

[Pavlov]

Do you think Trump did anything wrong RE: these dealings with Ukraine?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

There's just one problem.

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and do ents - many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles - conflict with Biden's narrative.

And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma's legal troubles and stop prosecutors' plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma's American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor and offered "an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures" about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government's official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma's American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team's internal emails.

At the time, Shokin's office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Do ents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for do ents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.

Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin's firing over concerns about corruption and inep ude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.

Some of the new do ents I obtained call that claim into question.

In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. "The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors," Shokin testified.

"On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation," Shokin added.

Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by do ents from Burisma's legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden's effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.

Burisma's own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton's administration.

Just days before Biden forced Shokin's firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there. Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: "With regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the government's reshuffle."

Ukraine's Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokin's firing or anything to do with Burisma.

Painter then asked one of the Ukraine embassy's workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraine's prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show. Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor's office.

At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with an American criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.

Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.

On March 29, 2016, the day Shokin's firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down, the memos show.

Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin's firing. Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star's memos.

Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor's office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the "false" narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.

"They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management," the memo stated.

The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma's owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: "These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution ... and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies."

The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of Shokin than Biden's. And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.

For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet. "The reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly," she wrote.

Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that "I think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washington" and providing contact information for Swartz. "I would be happy to help," added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.

Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.

Just days before Trump took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues. And Buretta gave an interview in Ukraine about how he helped navigate the issues.

Today, two questions remain.

One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma's case, given his son's interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.

The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new do ents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story's credibility. And that's an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...mpression=true

Affidavit link

https://www.scribd.com/do ent/4276...okin-Statement

[Pavlov]

Affidavit link

https://www.scribd.com/do ent/4276...okin-Statement

Yeah, the guy who was fired for being soft on corruption was really coming down on the pro-Russian oligarch's corruption.

You're falling for it again.

[LkrFan]

Oh snap

[pgardn]

Trump has asked the president of a foreign country to look for dirt on a political opponent.
And the orange man admits it. This in itself is enough. If the Senate was a (D) he'd be gone.

Now if they go further and tie in withholding of funds... Then they find an attempt to cover up... (Dont think they will, he used intelligence level encryption for political purposes; And he can be intransigent again and refuse to give anything up for some sort of presidential super hero status that requires and will add another court date to his over 3300 law suits in the past few years)

Crazy that we have a president who has a job and he thinks his job is to focus attention on himself. He has done a bang up job in this respect.

No way in 2020, the red team must decide how they go down. This is now the interesting part for me.

[vy65]

“I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

Was good enough for the ICIG

[vy65]

DJT is the boss of the DOJ. The ICIG is independent.

[boutons_deux]

DJT is the boss of the DOJ. The ICIG is independent.

and the ICIG concluded the wb's complaint was legit, it's Trash's non-independent sycophant Maguire who "broke the law" by taking the wb info directly to Trash, instead of Congress. And Trash stashed it on his super-secret server.

[vy65]

A review of the entire complaint shows it is not so much an example of whistle-blowing, an act that can only be done by the individual holding the whistle, but an elaborate gossipy game of telephone between unnamed individuals whose motives and credibility are impossible to ascertain.

In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found in its review of the complaint from the anonymous official that the intelligence community inspector general found “indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the DOJ legal opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

DOJ officials determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient since the president is an independent cons utional officer who is not subordinate to unelected intelligence agency bureaucrats. The DOJ opinion also determined that the complaint, which was based almost entirely on hearsay, was not “urgent” as required by statute and therefore not required to be submitted to congressional intelligence committees.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26...nt-falsehoods/

Who is a "Whistleblower"?
A Whistleblower is any individual who provides the right information to the right people. Stated differently, lawful whistleblowing occurs when an individual provides information that they reasonably believe evidences wrongdoing to an authorized recipient. Once that right information has been given to the right people, the whistleblower has made a Protected Disclosure and is afforded whistleblower protections.

What is the "Right Information"?
The "Right Information" is any information an individual reasonably believes evidences wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is a a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Wrongdoing is not policy disputes, management disagreements or other de minimis or trivial issues.

Who are the "Right People"?
The "Right People" are those known as "authorized recipient(s)". Authorized recipients include: 1) a government supervisor in the employee`s chain of command, up to and including the head of the employing agency; 2) the IG of the employing agency or IC Element; 3) the Director of National Intelligence (DNI); 4) the ICIG; 5) an employee designated by any of the above officials for the purpose of receiving such disclosures. Authorized recipients are those individuals who can correct the wrongdoing that is reported to them. Inherent in that concept is that anyone without a clearance, or who is not in government, would not be an authorized recipient.

[DarrinS]

The call transcript was so damning, that Schiff had to go full improv.

[ElNono]

Trump never spoke to a gran jury

obstruction of justice has nothing to do with a grand jury. Then again, I'm not djohn, I'm fine with whatever happened with muh Russia. This is a different thing altogether.

[ElNono]

using serious news outlet to refer to wapo

They are like the wilt chamberlain of fake news. And rarellg correct their fake stories. Most of th efake news of last few years have been parroted by other outlets starting with "according to the wapo".

This is just yesterday for christsakes

You really should pay attention more or just stick to commenting on Manu and video games nig

I said on the original post I don't give two craps about WaPo, but they are batting a much better average than the QAnon, Breibart, Ryan Saavedra fake news... that much is clear.

How about you go back to declaring WW3 for the 2400 time

[benefactor]

Let's call a spade a spade on this...even if he isn't impeached both sides have to admit this was a next level stupid decision by Trump. After spending basically your whole presidency dealing with the Russia bull you decide it's a good idea to call a foreign leader and have them investigate a political opponent heading into your re-election. That seems like a whole new tier in the lack of self awareness category.

[ElNono]

That wasn’t the favor he asked for. Did you not read it in full for yourself?

I read the transcript released by the White House. It doesn't need much spinning, it's all laid bare.

Now tell me how that's any less credible than PizzaGate...

[ElNono]

Let's call a spade a spade on this...even if he isn't impeached both sides have to admit this was a next level stupid decision by Trump. After spending basically your whole presidency dealing with the Russia bull you decide it's a good idea to call a foreign leader and have them investigate a political opponent heading into your re-election. That seems like a whole new tier in the lack of self awareness category.

Pretty much.

Completely self inflicted wound. I don't know if Rudy got him on his meds or what, completely unnecessary too.

[Winehole23]

The call transcript was so damning, that Schiff had to go full improv.

So, to be completely clear you're cool with Trump using US foreign policy as a lever to get a foreign country to help him with reelection?

[vy65]

Let's call a spade a spade on this...even if he isn't impeached both sides have to admit this was a next level stupid decision by Trump. After spending basically your whole presidency dealing with the Russia bull you decide it's a good idea to call a foreign leader and have them investigate a political opponent heading into your re-election. That seems like a whole new tier in the lack of self awareness category.

I mean, this. You can obfuscate all you want, but it’s pretty ing soviet to ask a foreign power to exert pressure on a political rival. This is real life, not game of thrones.

[ElNono]

Complaint From So-Called ‘Whistleblower’ Is Riddled With Gossip, Blatant Falsehoods

The formal complaint from an anti-Trump “whistleblower” alleging various crimes by President Donald Trump is riddled with third-hand gossip and outright falsehoods. The do ent was declassified by Trump Wednesday evening and released to the public Thursday morning. The complaint, which was delivered to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees, follows the same template used in the infamous and debunked Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier.

Rather than provide direct evidence that was witnessed or obtained firsthand by the complainant, the do ent instead combines gossip from various anonymous individuals, public media reports, and blatant misstatements of fact and law in service of a narrative that is directly contradicted by underlying facts. A footnote in the do ent even boasts about its use of “ample open-source information.”


Contrary to news reports asserting that the complaint included volumes of information incriminating Trump, it is instead based entirely on the president’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and various public media reports.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the do ent, the complainant confesses on the first page. Instead, the complainant notes, the do ent is based on conversations with “more than half a dozen U.S. officials.” Those officials are not named, and their positions are not identified anywhere in the letter.

The complainant begins by falsely characterizing a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, the transcript of which was released by the White House on Wednesday.

Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike,” the complainant alleges. A review of the transcript of the call shows that while Trump mentioned Crowdstrike once during the call, he never made such a request about locating and turning over multiple servers to the U.S.

The complainant also falsely alleges that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.

“The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position,” the complainant alleges, based on gossip he says he heard from unnamed White House officials.

Trump made no such suggestion to Zelensky, according to the transcript of the phone call. While Trump did say that it was “unfair” that a prosecutor who was “very good” was “shut down,” it’s not clear that Trump was even referring to Lutsenko, as a previous prosecutor named Viktor Shokin was fired after he opened investigations into a Ukrainian energy company that placed Hunter Biden, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, on its board.

Trump directly references Shokin later in the conversation.


“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,” Trump said.

In 2018, Joe Biden bragged on camera that his threats to withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees from Ukraine directly led to Shokin’s firing.

The complainant then alleges, without evidence, that efforts to secure the records of the call to prevent unauthorized access to classified information are themselves proof of corruption.

The transcript was “loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature,” the complainant claims. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

The complainant provides zero evidence beyond the opinion of an anonymous official that phone conversations between world leaders do not contain “anything remotely sensitive.” Trump formally declassified the transcript of the phone call, which had previously been classified as “SECRET/NOFORN,” meaning the information could not be shared with uncleared U.S. individuals or any foreign nationals, earlier this week.

In a footnote, the complainant even alleges that the mere classification of phone calls between world leaders was itself a corrupt act.

Following the section on Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, the complainant then devotes several pages to summaries of various news articles as proof of the underlying allegations in the complaint. The complainant quotes George Stephanopoulos (an ABC News employee who previously served in President Bill Clinton’s White House), The Hill, Bloomberg News, Politico, Fox News, the New York Times, and even Twitter.

The do ent itself is riddled not with evidence directly viewed by the complainant, but repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

A review of the entire complaint shows it is not so much an example of whistle-blowing, an act that can only be done by the individual holding the whistle, but an elaborate gossipy game of telephone between unnamed individuals whose motives and credibility are impossible to ascertain.

In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found in its review of the complaint from the anonymous official that the intelligence community inspector general found “indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the DOJ legal opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

DOJ officials determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient since the president is an independent cons utional officer who is not subordinate to unelected intelligence agency bureaucrats. The DOJ opinion also determined that the complaint, which was based almost entirely on hearsay, was not “urgent” as required by statute and therefore not required to be submitted to congressional intelligence committees.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26...nt-falsehoods/

Former CIA official on whistleblower: ‘How could this be an intelligence matter?’

I am troubled by the complaint and wonder how an intelligence officer could file it over something a president said to a foreign leader. How could this be an intelligence matter?

It appears likely to me that this so-called whistleblower was pursuing a political agenda.

I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.

My su ions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This do ent looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.

Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.

House Republicans need to ask the whistleblower under oath whether he spoke to the press or Congress about his complaint.

Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.

The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.

I refuse to believe that the leaking, timing and presentation of this complaint is coincidence. I don’t think the American people will buy this either.

I’m more worried, however, that this latest instance of blatant politicization of intelligence by Trump haters will do long term damage to the relationship between the intelligence community and US presidents for many years to come.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former...mpression=true

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

There's just one problem.

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and do ents - many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles - conflict with Biden's narrative.

And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma's legal troubles and stop prosecutors' plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma's American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor and offered "an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures" about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government's official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma's American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team's internal emails.

At the time, Shokin's office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Do ents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for do ents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.

Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin's firing over concerns about corruption and inep ude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.

Some of the new do ents I obtained call that claim into question.

In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. "The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors," Shokin testified.

"On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation," Shokin added.

Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by do ents from Burisma's legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden's effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.

Burisma's own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton's administration.

Just days before Biden forced Shokin's firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there. Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: "With regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the government's reshuffle."

Ukraine's Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokin's firing or anything to do with Burisma.

Painter then asked one of the Ukraine embassy's workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraine's prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show. Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor's office.

At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with an American criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.

Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.

On March 29, 2016, the day Shokin's firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down, the memos show.

Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin's firing. Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star's memos.

Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor's office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the "false" narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.

"They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management," the memo stated.

The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma's owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: "These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution ... and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies."

The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of Shokin than Biden's. And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.

For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet. "The reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly," she wrote.

Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that "I think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washington" and providing contact information for Swartz. "I would be happy to help," added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.

Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.

Just days before Trump took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues. And Buretta gave an interview in Ukraine about how he helped navigate the issues.

Today, two questions remain.

One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma's case, given his son's interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.

The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new do ents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story's credibility. And that's an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...mpression=true

walls of text... spin machine working overtime

[vy65]

So, to be completely clear you're cool with Trump using US foreign policy as a lever to get a foreign country to help him with reelection?

Expressly using and then admitting to such while acting like it’s no biggie.

[ElNono]

I mean, I'm not even going djohn on this, tbh... don't even care how it ends. My biggest issue is actually with pussy dems getting railroaded and basically destroying the little power Congress has left.

[TSA]

I read the transcript released by the White House. It doesn't need much spinning, it's all laid bare.

Now tell me how that's any less credible than PizzaGate...

If you read the transcript why would you falsely claim that was the favor he asked for?

[DarrinS]

So, to be completely clear you're cool with Trump using US foreign policy as a lever to get a foreign country to help him with reelection?

If you read the transcript, it sounds like he's trying to get to the bottom of the 2016 election interference by Ukraine. Is that not legitimate?

[Reck]

Do you think Trump did anything wrong RE: these dealings with Ukraine?

Yes or no.

All this guy does is post smileys and look like a re . Literally the only reason he logs in.