Diplomat tells investigators he raised alarms in '15 about Hunter Biden's Ukraine work **UPDATED**

[Dennis Donovan]

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2019, 12:11 PM - Edit history (2)

I'm sure this was leaked by the House Intel repugs...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/diplomat-tells-investigators-he-raised-alarms-in-2015-about-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-but-was-rebuffed/2019/10/18/81e35be9-4f5a-4048-8520-0baabb18ab63_story.html

By John Hudson, Rachael Bade and Matt Viser

Oct. 18, 2019 at 7:44 a.m. EDT

A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.

Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.

The testimony by Kent offers a reminder that as Democrats probe President Trump’s alleged actions in pressuring Ukraine to dig up compromising information on Biden, the impeachment inquiry also threatens to keep alive questions about the former vice president’s handling of his son’s foreign work at a precarious moment for his 2020 presidential campaign.

</snip>

...and Jarvanka couldn't get a security clearance UNTIL Trump became personally involved and overrode the concerns of natsec officials. Ask yourselves... what's the bigger scandal??

**UPDATE**

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29515301/george-kent-deposition-hunter-biden-donald-trump-republicans/

The Washington Post's Story on George Kent and Hunter Biden Shows Desperation to Play Both Sides
I think we can go a bit harder than "unsubstantiated claims" here, no?

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
OCT 18, 2019

<snip>

Bear in mind—if the folks at Camp Runamuck had not bungled their way into admitting to several felonies and impeachable offenses, brother Kent would still be out there happily carrying out the idiotic non-policies cooked up by El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago that have sold out the national interest and lit a good part of the world on fire. Moreover, I think it's safe to assume that the People Familiar With The Testimony are either Republican congresscritters or Republican staffers. If that is the case, then the Post has a responsibility to let its readers know that fact since this is clearly going to be the White House defense strategy going forward.

No names, of course. But "Republican sources familiar with the testimony" would be perfectly inbounds. (Come to think of it, if the sources are Democrats, that's a helluva story, too.) Anonymity is one thing. Strategic camouflage is another, and no journalist is bound to provide the latter. That's how everybody got in trouble with Whitewater. And it's not like it's an impossible thing to do. In fact, later in the story, an anonymous source is identified as, "a former senior Biden national security adviser," which lends credibility to offset a reader's skepticism as regards anonymous sources.

<snip>

And this section here is just complete manure.

Although many of Trump’s charges regarding Hunter Biden have been unfounded, the elder Biden has faced questions about why he didn’t anticipate concerns about potential conflicts of interest as he took a leading role in carrying out U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Polls show Biden with an advantage over Trump in a potential general election matchup, and Biden has sought in recent days to focus attention on the actions of a president many Democrats see as corrupt and unfit for office.

Here, in the context of a political campaign, in which, I guess, empirical facts are not altogether necessary, we are comparing something that the president* actually did, and something that his chief-of-staff copped to on Thursday, to "unfounded" charges and "questions" about why the elder Biden "didn't anticipate concerns." Can the shadows and the clouds be far behind? And then there's this:

Trump and his allies have made the unsubstantiated claim that Biden pressed for the prosecutor’s firing to protect his son. In fact, according to former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, the investigation of Burisma was dormant at the time. And Biden, adding to the calls from others in the U.S. government and Western institutions, was urging Ukraine to tap a new prosecutor who would be more aggressive in combating corruption.

A demonstrably truthless president* and his allies have made "unsubstantiated" claims? I think we could go a little harder there, no? I think we all can agree that unbridled nepotism is not necessarily a good thing in government; Lord knows, we have had enough proof of that over the past couple of years. But if we're in the middle of creating a media environment in which Donald Trump, Jr. feels comfortable waxing all moral about what the children of politicians should and should not do, then nobody has learned anything.

</snip>

[Freethinker65]

1. Lots of accusations are made. Was he actually rebuffed, or had the issue already been looked into?

[Celerity]

2. from the article

Kent, who also testified about how Trump’s associates raised unfounded allegations about the former ambassador to Ukraine, is the first known example of a career diplomat who raised concerns internally in the Obama administration about Hunter Biden’s board position. The Washington Post has previously reported that there had been discussions among Biden’s advisers about whether his son’s Ukraine work would be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that one former adviser had been concerned enough to mention it to Biden, though the conversation was brief.

[Freethinker65]

3. Exactly, so advisers were aware of potential backlash because of how it might be used

Potentially used against the Veep or WH.

I assume it was determined, as usual, not to mix family business with government policy. That seems to be the norm. No record, despite chasing false leads and threats to withhold money if some dirt was not created, Veep did anything improper.

[TidalWave46]

4. Sounds to me like George Kent did the right thing.

Don’t cheer leaks and transparency only when you like them. It was a big ethical lapse on face value. After digging around, no impropriety was discovered. Joe Biden acted in good faith, in the best interest of our country, in the best interest of the Ukraine, and our in the best interests of our allies.

[SKKY]

5. Am I the only one who saw the title of this post and thought...

...Wait! Diplo is involved in this? The EDM Dj????

[MrsCoffee]

6. No you aren't the only one.

[Dennis Donovan]

7. LOL! I had to shorten it to fit the subject line