Testimony at impeachment shows Biden's hiring was part of corrupt scheme

Sharyl Attkisson:

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.
...

So why does the media claim that the corruption allegations against the Bidens have been discredited?  They appear to be valid.  It looks like Joe Biden was abusing his power to protect the corrupt deal that included being named to the board of Burisma for a ludicrous sum while not even speaking the language and having no experience in the gas business.  Joe Biden bragged about his efforts to protect the company that was paying his son more than he was worth.  Why do the Democrats want to shut down any investigation of what looks like corruption involving the Bidens?