Media’s defense of Biden’s firing of Ukraine’s prosecutor is laughable.

Joe Biden’s Ukraine Scandal: The Truth​ Unveiled

Joe Biden famously bragged that while vice president, he forced the firing of Ukraine’s ​prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, ⁢by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. government aid ⁤from ​the financially strapped ‍European country. ‌Biden’s boast, ​however, now threatens his presidency because overwhelming evidence indicates the Ukrainian ‍energy company, Burisma, paid⁤ Hunter Biden millions ⁢to⁤ have his father⁢ deal ‌with Shokin.

In response to this most serious of scandals,‍ Biden and his Democrat and media backers are pushing the most ‌ridiculous of narratives: Biden didn’t want Shokin fired‌ for investigating‌ Burisma, but ‌for not ‌investigating ⁣Burisma. Then-Vice President Biden was ⁢only executing‍ American ​policy ⁢— a ⁣policy supported by‌ our allies, you see? So neither Joe nor ​Hunter‌ Biden did⁢ anything wrong, the⁤ party line goes.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler has ⁤championed this syllogism since December 2019, but⁢ in his mid-July 2023 article “Here ‍We ⁢Go Again: ​An Explosive Hunter Biden Laptop Email Needs Context,” the self-branded “fact” ​“checker” refreshed these talking points to dismiss the significance of a Nov. 2, 2015, email thread⁢ identified by ⁣congressional⁣ Republicans as‌ further evidence⁣ of Biden family corruption.

That thread began⁤ with an email from Burisma‌ executive Vadym Pozharskyi to Hunter ‍Biden, fellow Burisma board member Devon Archer, and Biden’s‍ Rosemont ​Seneca business partner Eric Schwerin,‌ discussing a proposal from the ​lobbying firm Blue Star Strategies. In that email, the Burisma ‍executive complained the Blue Star proposal failed to identify the ⁢“concrete‌ tangible results that ​we set out to achieve‌ in the first place,” and also “doesn’t offer any names of top US officials”⁣ or “Ukrainian officials (the President of⁣ Ukraine, chief of staff, Prosecutor General)⁤ as key ‍targets⁤ for ‌improving Nikolay’s case and​ his situation ​in Ukraine,” Nikolay being the ⁢nickname‌ of Burisma’s founder and then-president Mykola ​Zlochevsky.

“If, however, this is done deliberately to be on the safe and cautious ⁣side,”⁢ Pozharskyi continued, “I can understand the⁤ rationale.”‍ The Burisma executive ‍then stressed​ that ​if the parties all understood the true purpose of the Blue‍ Star engagement ‍“and all our joint efforts,” they⁢ should proceed immediately. Pozharskyi reiterated his “only ‌concern” was that they ​were on the “same page re‍ our final goals,” with the Burisma executive ⁤confirming‍ that⁣ the “the ultimate purpose” was “to close down” “any cases/pursuits ⁤against Nikolay in Ukraine.”

Hunter‌ Biden’s business partner replied to the son of the now-president,⁢ saying, “I would tell Vadym that this is definitely done deliberately to the be on the safe and ⁢cautious side,” and​ that Blue Star “understand[s] the scope and deliverables.”

The Washington Post “fact checker” acknowledged this email “exchange took place about ⁣one month before then-Vice President ⁤Joe‌ Biden traveled ⁣to Ukraine with the express purpose ⁢of seeking the removal of the country’s top⁢ prosecutor.” Kessler nonetheless concluded the emails failed to implicate the Bidens⁤ in corruption ⁤because, according to The​ Washington Post ⁤scribe, “documents and interviews” showed Shokin had failed ⁤to act against​ Burisma, which was​ “the reason the United States, sought his removal in ‍the first place.” And pushing for ⁣Shokin’s removal, Kessler stressed, was “U.S. ‌policy” that Biden merely executed.

Kessler’s current spin mirrors that he and other Biden apologists pushed when then-President Donald ‍Trump ‌went public with accusations⁤ that Biden, while ​vice president, forced ‍the Ukrainian government to ⁤fire Shokin because ⁣the ⁤prosecutor was investigating Burisma. Legacy media disregarded Trump’s December 2019 allegations, however, reporting ‍instead⁣ that ​“the investigation of Zlochevsky was largely dormant at the time of Biden’s threat.”

The press ⁤likewise ⁣amplified claims made by a former foreign policy⁤ adviser of Biden’s, Mike⁤ Carpenter, who maintained, “Shokin⁢ played the role of protecting the vested interest in the Ukrainian system.” Of the fired Ukrainian prosecutor,⁤ Carpenter reportedly said, “He ​never went after any corrupt individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption.”

Carpenter’s ‌claims that Shokin “never went ⁣after any⁣ corrupt individuals at all,” doesn’t square with ⁢even The Washington Post’s reporting that under Shokin in February ⁢2016, Ukraine had reinstated a court order to seize ‌Zlochevsky’s personal property, including ‍a mansion, a luxury car, and plots of ‍land. But while the Post attempts to explain away the renewed court order against Zlochevsky, the legacy ⁢outlet missed ‌the larger — and conclusive ⁢— point: Burisma’s founder, Zlochevsky, ⁤and its⁢ top executive, ⁣Pozharskyi, feared Shokin and his investigation.

The ⁢evidence on​ this point is overwhelming and comes firsthand from Burisma ⁢executive Pozharskyi, whose November 2015 email to⁢ Hunter‌ Biden and his colleagues spoke of Burisma’s “ultimate‍ purpose” being “to close down” “any cases/pursuits against Nikolay‍ in Ukraine.” Hunter Biden’s business partner and ‍fellow Burisma board member Devon Archer⁣ has⁢ similarly testified ⁤ in a closed-door session of the ​House ‍Oversight⁣ Committee that in December 2015, Zlochevsky and Pozharskyi‌ “placed constant pressure” on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C. ‍regarding the Ukrainian investigation. In‌ response to such pressure, ⁤according to Archer’s testimony,⁣ Hunter ‍Biden called his then-vice president father ⁣with Zlochevsky‍ and Pozharskyi in tow.

The recently released FD-1023‌ memorandum summarizing a “highly ‌credible” confidential human ⁣source’s (CHS)​ reporting‍ provides further ​corroboration that Shokin was investigating Burisma​ — or, at a minimum, Burisma executives believed he was. According ⁢to ⁣that longtime CHS, in ‌discussing⁤ Burisma’s desire to purchase an American oil‍ and gas business, the CHS “told ⁣Zlochevsky that due‍ to Shokin’s investigation into Burisma, which was made public at​ this ⁣time, it would have a substantial ​negative impact on Burisma’s ‌prospective⁣ [for an Initial Public Offering] in⁣ the United States.” According to the CHS, ‌Zlochevsky⁢ replied, “something to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.’”

It ‍is unbelievable that Burisma would speak ‍of being under investigation⁣ by ⁤Shokin and would‍ “place constant pressure” on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C. unless Shokin were investigating the Ukrainian energy company.​ It is plain silly for‌ The Washington Post to pretend the evidence establishes⁢ that ‍Shokin was not investigating​ Burisma.

The second defense proffered by The Washington Post and Biden’s other apologists, however,​ moves ⁣them‍ from silly to laughingstocks. It’s that the millions of dollars ‌Burisma allegedly paid to Hunter⁢ Biden were not illegal because the then-vice president was merely executing‍ American‍ policy.

Initially, ‍it is unknown ‌how much of the “Shokin must be⁤ fired” policy ‌originated from then-Vice President Joe ‍Biden. ‍But even if Joe Biden ⁢had nothing‍ to do with formulating the policy ​— something unlikely given his position as the point person ⁢on ⁣Ukraine — that‌ merely means Burisma paid Hunter Biden⁢ (and⁤ Joe Biden if the CHS’s reporting is accurate) for something ‍the United ​States would⁢ have done without ⁤millions ‍showered on⁣ the son⁣ of the now-president.

That doesn’t exonerate Hunter Biden or Joe Biden: It merely⁤ means ⁤they sold​ the​ illusion that Joe Biden had forced Shokin’s firing for Burisma as promised.