Power Corrupts and Biden Was Corrupted Absolutely
by John D. O’Connor
The mainstream media has drawn its line in the sand on the current Trump-Biden imbroglio, claiming that there is “no evidence” that Joe Biden or son Hunter acted corruptly regarding Ukraine. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
This dogmatic assertion is necessary to prove even a watery case against Trump, because if Joe Biden acted even arguably corruptly, there would be every reason for Trump to seek to have Ukraine investigate him. Since combatting Ukrainian (read: Russian-backed) corruption has been a bipartisan goal since the Obama administration, Trump would thereby be carrying out admirable U.S. policy, even if it also held for him the happy prospect of dirtying a rival. Of course, if Ukrainian corruption also played a role in U.S. election interference claims, all the more reason to investigate it.
In fact, the evidence of Biden corruption is both strong and wide ranging. Vice President Joe Biden was appointed the American anti-corruption point person in February 2014, as the Russian-supported regime of Viktor Yanukovych collapsed amid anti-corruption protests. Succeeding Ukrainian officials immediately raised concerns about retrieving the billions fleeing oligarchs were looting.
But rather than fighting looting and corruption, Biden and son helped themselves with both hands. On April 14, 2014, Britain announced proudly that it had convinced a London court to impound $23 million deposited by Burisma Holdings, a gas company owned by former Ukrainian officials and oligarchs. On April 29, 2019, Unites States Attorney General Eric Holder appeared jointly at a London press conference with U.K. Home Secretary Teresa May to announce United States support for these efforts.
On April 18, 2014, just four days after the impound of funds, Burisma announced the hiring of Joe Biden’s son Hunter for “corporate governance” services, following which he was paid a reported $50,000 per month.
Did Burisma receive a “quid pro quo?” Apparently so, because for the next year, Ukraine inexplicably became uninterested in cooperating with the British seizure of its $23 million, failing to give the British Court an official document asserting ownership. In early 2015, a frustrated British Court gave Burisma back its $23 million, which promptly was transferred to Cyprus.
Indeed, after Hunter’s hiring, all action against Burisma appears to have been silenced, when in late 2015 corruption prosecutor Viktor Shokin decided to revive the moribund investigation against Burisma. In March 2016, as Shokin persisted in attempting to interview Hunter Biden, after he had been told to lay off, Joe Biden admitted to withholding $1 billion in financial aid guarantees to Ukraine in order to have Shokin fired. Biden now claims Shokin was fired because he was corrupt, but Shokin has stated in an affidavit that he was told directly that he was fired because he went after Burisma.
After Shokin was fired, three cases against Burisma were transferred to the National Anti-corruption Bureau (“NABU”), two were stopped abruptly and the remaining litigation settled favorably to Burisma. And who helped create NABU? The Obama Administration.
However, anti-Russian Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko put new life into the anti-oligarch corruption initiative by appointing as the Ukrainian corruption prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, not legally trained but a true Ukrainian hero who had been jailed for two years by the Russian-backed regime. Soon a Ukrainian politician, MB Boryslav Rozenblat had alleged, and a Ukrainian court agreed, that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 United States election in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, by providing dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, to wit, the “black ledger” showing millions in transfers to Manafort. Apparently, Rozenblat possessed a tape of an admission of a pro-Clinton official to the effect that the Ukraine had colluded with Clinton. Obama-appointed State Department holdover officials were not pleased.
Over $4.4 million in State Department Aid had been earmarked for the anti-corruption office held by Lutsenko, but soon the money was withheld from him and transferred to a private anti-corruption group created by major Obama donor George Soros, who held significant Ukrainian interests.
State Department official George Kent then sent Lutsenko a strongly-worded letter telling Lutsenko not to pursue certain anti-corruption activists. Obama then appointed as U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who promptly told Lutsenko that there were certain targets he could not prosecute. Lutsenko tried to present his charges to James Comey’s assigned FBI agent and to Rod Rosenstein’s Department of Justice, neither of whom showed interest.
Frustrated, Lutsenko and his associate Kostiantyn Kulyk sought to bring their evidence personally to the United States in early 2018, while the Russiagate investigation was in full swing. But it appears that Yovanovitch’s office was none too cooperative and no visas were forthcoming, stranding Lutsenko’s group.
Not knowing where to turn, Lutsenko let it be known that he wanted to speak with Rudy Giuliani, personal attorney for President Trump, in hopes of jump-starting his efforts. Lutsenko told Giuliani, working with State Department approval, of his efforts to bring anti-corruption actions, his stifling by Yovanovitch and his evidence against the Bidens.
As talks were proceeding, the anti-Russian Poroshenko was defeated at the polls by Russian-favored candidate Volodymyr Zelensky, scheduled to take office May 20, 2019. However, Giuliani could not talk to Zelensky after he took office on May 20, and only Trump could get assurances from Zelensky of anti-corruption intent. Lutsenko was soon dismissed after Zelensky took office, leaving behind a 7-page dossier of anti-Biden evidence.
Prior to the July 25, 2019 phone call with Zelensky, Giuliani and Trump had both declared publicly that they wished Ukraine to investigate obvious corruption, including any that the Bidens may have carried out. If this was a legitimate governmental pursuit, as it had been for five years, any political advantage would be incidental.
So was Trump’s initiative to Zelensky appropriate? Yes, if there was sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation of either Biden. And contrary to the mainstream media, such evidence was not merely sufficient. It was overwhelming.
_________________________
John D. O’Connor is the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the book, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism.