Diplomat tells investigators he raised alarms in 2015 about Hunter Biden's Ukraine work

[bluewater]

Diplomat tells investigators he raised alarms in 2015 about Hunter Biden’s Ukraine work but was rebuffed

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.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/diplomat-tells-investigators-he-raised-alarms-in-2015-about-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-but-was-rebuffed/ar-AAIYSLA

A career state Department Official testified this to Congressional investigators this past Tuesday, as reported here by MSN.

This is not a right wing talking point, it's sworn testimony by a career State Department official to Congress.

[HeartlandProgressive]

1. "the impeachment inquiry also threatens to keep alive questions..."

"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."

yes it does.

[mr_lebowski]

2. 'Concern' is fairly warranted ... but is there any actual evidence Hunter acted corruptly? (nt)

[bluewater]

4. "would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats"

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

That was the point George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, tried to make to Biden Staffers when Joe was VP and what he testified to Congress on Tuesday.

[mr_lebowski]

9. Thanks for reminding me why I generally avoid this particular forum ...

But by all means, carry on ...

[zentrum]

11. The problem is that...

......this creates the appearance of corruption.

That really matters too.

It doesn't help that Biden staffers rebuffed an investigation.

I'd really like Joe or Hunter or somebody to explain to us what he did on the Ukrainian Board that was worth 50K a month? Is he an energy expert or what?

[mr_lebowski]

13. Companies hire famous people and put them on their Boards for the name recognition ALL THE TIME

THOUSANDS of fucking Republican Politicians and their Family Members have cushy gigs like this.

There's nothing illegal about it. That person doesn't have to be qualified, that person doesn't have to DO SHIT other than appear on the masthead or be a pretty face or whatever.

And it wasn't the "Ukranian Board".

And it wasn't "an investigation", as far as I can discern.

Repubs do this shit in a heartbeat and laugh off Democrats 'concerns about appearances'.

I'm done with fucking hand-wringing of this type.

Show me that Hunter tried to curry favor for that Gas Co with the USA, using his connections with his Dad, and my ears will crop up. Otherwise, this is a huge MEH to me.

[awesomerwb1]

3. So he didn't go to anyone else besides the Biden's office?

[ancianita]

5. Hunter Biden quit Burisma two weeks before Joe announced his candidacy. Everything else

is an adult child working abroad for a fossil company.

I'll believe Republican doubt when Republicans doubt Trump's kids' foreign relationships, with their unqualified classified clearance.

[ooky]

6. Meh. Even without the impeachment inquiry the questions about the Bidens

will be kept alive by right wingers. And "having concern" is a normal thing.

Not sure this article has any real point, except to perpetuate more right wing propaganda.

[TwilightZone]

7. The headline doesn't match the article.

Kent didn't express concerns about Biden's work. He expressed concerns about how Ukrainian officials could view and potentially attempt to use the relationship.

[zentrum]

12. Good point. That also matters.

[Dennis Donovan]

8. Linked article is Bothsiderism bullshit

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>

[MineralMan]

10. Way to go, there, bluewater.

We're counting on you...yup...

[still_one]

14. As dependable as sunrise and sunset

[bluewater]

15. The ad hominem attacks?

I am used to them. They are an attempted distraction from the issue at hand..

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.

Sworn testimony by a career state Dept official, who was a deputy assistant Secretary of State at the time, doesn't matter as much as shooting the messenger, I guess.

[MelissaB]

16. Not a good look and dirty, grimy Trump will have millions of $$ to amplify this.

It will go over especially well in conservative media where it's all about whataboutism.