Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[Hotcakes]

Trump-backed allegations against Biden 'not credible,' testified US official now touted by Trump

Republican lawmakers looking to defend President Donald Trump against allegations of impropriety in the House impeachment inquiry are increasingly pointing to closed-door testimony from senior diplomat Kurt Volker, insisting his version of events means Trump never engaged in an improper "quid pro quo" when he pressed Ukraine's new president to investigate allegations against Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

"The definitive account on all of this is the one from Ambassador Volker," one of Trump's staunchest allies, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters on Wednesday morning.

Around the same time, Trump tweeted a "thank you" to Volker for his testimony, a transcript of which was released by the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

But whatever Volker's testimony means for Trump's possible impeachment, the career diplomat's account explicitly undercuts the specific allegations against Biden that Trump and his allies have been pushing online and on TV for months.


"No evidence was brought forward to support (the allegations)," Volker, Trump's special envoy to Ukraine until two months ago, testified under oath. "I thought they were very self-serving and not credible."

(MORE: How Giuliani's associates, promoting a foreign agenda, used Trump-friendly media to get a US ambassador removed)
Biden has publicly recounted how, as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine when he was vice president in 2016, he pressured Ukraine's leadership to fire the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. Biden even threatened to withhold nearly $1 billion in U.S. aid if Shokin wasn't removed.

"When Vice President Biden made those representations … he was representing U.S. policy at the time," Volker testified, adding that the policy being executed by Biden "was widely understood internationally to be the right policy."

Susan Walsh/AP, FILE
Kurt Volker, President Donald Trump's former special envoy to Ukraine, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Oct. 16, 2019.

Also at the time, Shokin's office was supposedly investigating alleged corruption in Ukraine, including corruption within the major gas company Burisma, which had added Biden's son Hunter, a lawyer and businessman, to its board two years earlier.

Republicans described Biden's son as someone "with no energy experience and no Ukraine experience." And in the recent closed-door sessions they wondered whether Burisma may have hired Biden's son to curry favor with the Obama administration or otherwise protect themselves.

Volker told lawmakers it's "quite possible" that Burisma executives believed they were "buying influence" through Biden's son, but Volker balked at the notion that Biden would take any improper action on his son's behalf.

"I don't believe that Vice President Biden would be corrupted in [that] way," Volker testified.

In fact, according to what Volker told lawmakers, Biden's push for Shokin's firing was justified.

"It was a general assumption … among the European Union, France, Germany, American diplomats, U.K., that Shokin was not doing his job as a prosecutor general. He was not pursuing corruption cases," Volker testified.

(MORE: In revised testimony, Sondland contradicts Trump, describes Ukraine quid pro quo )
The ousted ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, similarly testified that Shokin had a "notorious reputation" for "not doing his job."

Even Jordan and Trump's other key congressional ally Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., conceded behind closed doors that Shokin was viewed as "a bad guy," as Jordan put it.

"I guess his reputation was one that he was not serious about really rooting out corruption," Meadows said, according to a transcript of closed-door testimony.

Nevertheless, in March, Shokin's successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, unleashed a series of explosive allegations about Shokin's firing.

In interviews with a conservative U.S. columnist, Lutsenko alleged that Biden pushed for Shokin's firing to protect his son and derail the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma.

NurPhoto via Getty Images, FILE
Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko speaks during a press conference in Kiev, Ukraine, March 07, 2019.
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution," Trump told Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, four months later on the now-infamous July 25 call that is at the heart of the House impeachment inquiry.

"A lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great," Trump added. "It sounds horrible to me."

In his testimony to House investigators, however, Volker said, "There is clear evidence that Vice President Biden did indeed weigh in with the president of Ukraine to have Shokin fired, but the motivations for that are entirely different from those contained in (Lutsenko's) allegation."

Lutsenko had his own agenda in hawking the allegation against Biden, according to Volker. With presidential elections in Ukraine just months away, Lutsenko feared he might lose his job under a new Ukrainian administration, Volker said.

He "was acting in a self-serving manner, frankly making things up, in order to appear important to the United States, because he wanted to save his job," and he wanted to save his job at least in part "to prevent investigations into himself for things that he may have done as prosecutor general," Volker testified. "So by making himself seem important and valuable to the United States, the United States then might object or prevent him from being removed by the new (Ukrainian) president."

Nevertheless, Volker acknowledged in his testimony that the allegations against Biden have "never actually been investigated" and have therefore never been directly or fully debunked.

In May, after Zelenskiy was elected Ukraine's new president and after the allegations against Biden began to attract more media attention, Lutsenko seemed to back away from his initial claims, telling Bloomberg News, "Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws (and) at least as of now we do not see any wrongdoing."

You mean this videotaped confession from the horses mouth is now an "allegation"..... ?????

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

In his testimony to House investigators, however, Volker said, "There is clear evidence that Vice President Biden did indeed weigh in with the president of Ukraine to have Shokin fired, but the motivations for that are entirely different from those contained in (Lutsenko's) allegation."

The problem is we have conflict of interest rules just for this reason. No one knows exactly what Biden's motivation was. His public statements seem to indicate some kind of crazed replay of his long ago confrontation with Corn Pop.

So the reason we have conflict of interest rules is so we don't have to speculate about motivation after the fact. We just say, don't do something that looks bad or appear to involve a conflict. I don't know how anyone could suggest Biden's conduct did not at least appear improper or questionable. He got the prosecutor fired who was investigating a corrupt company paying his son millions of dollars for nothing other than his last name.

I find it interesting that Obama has not weighed in and said that Biden was acting on his instructions. That would at least give Biden some cover, but radio silence from Obama.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You damn well he is going to control as much as possible.

As it should be.

Unless you are going to argue that Adam Schitt has not controlled as much as possible.

Good luck wit dat.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Not giving meritorious articles of impeachment a proper hearing in the senate is akin to complicity. Not saying republicans won’t make that decision but it has downsides.

I think I have said several times that the greater risk is that the Senate will not only give a hearing but it will be months longer than you bargained for, including the "getting there" time.

Not to worry there is going to be more attention than the dems ever wanted. Especially if the horowitz and durham stuff bubbles over in to the senate trial and the republicans think that that is a perfectly fine forum to hash all of that over ad naseum. You will be complaining that the trial is not supposed to be about impeaching Holder and Clapper.

Fun, fun, fun......

 

[UsualName]

As it should be.

Unless you are going to argue that Adam Schitt has not controlled as much as possible.

Good luck wit dat.

Not even a little bit. I’m someone who believes in the rule of law. That’s why I do not expect the senate to conduct themselves in the same manner as they did when Clinton was tried and never expected the House to act any differently.

The constitution is broad in this area with the exception of which body does what. How each body conducts itself is up to their own governance. For example, right now the senate must take up the articles of impeachment within one day from the house when passed. The senate can change those rules and say we want to sit on this for a few weeks. The can change the rules of how many days a week to try the charges or even how senators can ask questions. It’s totally open for them to change if they want.

As I’m thinking about this I think the way they set the rules for the trial may actually be telling of how the senate is leaning. If McConnell wants to overly control witnesses’ testimony and senate procedure then I’d say there isn’t much Republican support for impeachment. But if McConnell opens the whole thing up that may be an indication that Republican Senators May be more open than we think.

 

[UsualName]

I think I have said several times that the greater risk is that the Senate will not only give a hearing but it will be months longer than you bargained for, including the "getting there" time.

Not to worry there is going to be more attention than the dems ever wanted. Especially if the horowitz and durham stuff bubbles over in to the senate trial and the republicans think that that is a perfectly fine forum to hash all of that over ad naseum. You will be complaining that the trial is not supposed to be about impeaching Holder and Clapper.

Fun, fun, fun......

Eh, if the republicans really wanted to mess with the democrats they would work the trial right around the Iowa caucuses. Not that the senators in the race are doing particularly well but it adds pressure to a tense time and election results can overshadow a failure to remove verdict.

No one really cares about the Horowitz Durham stuff except Sean hannity viewers.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

But if McConnell opens the whole thing up that may be an indication that Republican Senators May be more open than we think.

They're walking a tightrope between disobeying their paymasters at Koch and China and seeing open political graves with their names on them.

I predict McConnell and the cuck republicans will try to use it as leverage on Trump to give in on China trade war, immigration and endless wars. That's what these dirtbags did with the Russia hoax and managed to effectively block Trump's agenda, you know, the one the voters wanted, for two years.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The constitution is broad in this area with the exception of which body does what. How each body conducts itself is up to their own governance. .

Fine, keep that in mind when all your various grievances about how the Senate actually ends out conducting itself arise. Let's see if you are so quick to point out that is all entirely up to them.

 

[UsualName]

They're walking a tightrope between disobeying their paymasters at Koch and China and seeing open political graves with their names on them.

I predict McConnell and the cuck republicans will try to use it as leverage on Trump to give in on China trade war, immigration and endless wars. That's what these dirtbags did with the Russia hoax and managed to effectively block Trump's agenda, you know, the one the voters wanted, for two years.

Not the voters, the electoral college. The voters actually voted against Trump.

 

[UsualName]

Fine, keep that in mind when all your various grievances about how the Senate actually ends out conducting itself arise. Let's see if you are so quick to point out that is all entirely up to them.

You got the wrong guy for this kind of stuff. I used to work in a heavily regulated industry and learned young that the rules are the rules and there is no sense in crying about them.