In recent weeks, new game-changing evidence of Joe Biden’s corruption has emerged – evidence that demands the launching of an impeachment inquiry to establish whether or not Biden solicited and accepted a bribe while he was vice president.
This evidence raises serious questions about the entire narrative of Biden’s December 2015 visit to Kyiv – when he says he used the threat of blocking $1 billion in U.S.-backed loan guarantees to pressure the Ukrainian government to remove the nation’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating a corrupt Ukrainian energy company on whose board sat Biden’s son Hunter.
We were told that Biden’s move to oust Shokin was the aim of U.S. policy in Ukraine at the time. But the new evidence calls that assertion into question and casts that maneuver in a far different light – it appears that rather than executing U.S. policy, Biden’s move to remove Shokin was an extracurricular event, unforeseen by and surprising to an interagency task force of bureaucrats from the State, Treasury, and Justice Departments, among others.
That Biden claims to have leveraged the loan guarantee to get what he wanted is indisputable: He famously acknowledged his demand for the quid pro quo in a January 23, 2018 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations: “I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billon dollars. I said you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
When the episode became an issue during the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump, Biden explained it away, claiming the prosecutor general was corrupt, and his ouster was an acknowledged goal of U.S. policy in Ukraine.
But contemporaneous emails and memos released last month show that senior U.S. Government officials believed the prosecutor general had made so much progress on cleaning up corruption that it warranted a “reward” of $1 billion in new U.S. loan guarantees.
For instance, in June of 2015 – six months before Biden’s visit – Victoria Nuland, then the State Department’s senior official on Ukraine, sent Shokin a letter praising him for the progress he had made on that front: “We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government. The challenges you face are difficult, but not insurmountable. You have an historic opportunity to address the injustices of the past by vigorously investigating and prosecuting corruption cases and recovering assets stolen from the Ukrainian people.”
Four months later, on October 1 of 2015, the interagency task force received this memo from a White House official: “It was agreed: the IPC concluded that (1) Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee and (2) Ukraine has an economic need for the guarantee and it is in our strategic interest to provide one.”
Consequently, when Biden pivoted in his December 2015 meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and demanded the ouster of Shokin as the price for the $1 billion in aid, U.S. Government officials back home were left to scramble: “Yikes,” read one response from a NSC staffer. “I don’t recall this coming up in our meeting with them on Tuesday … I’ve been meaning to write to you about our meeting – we were super impressed with the group, and we had a two-hour discussion of their priorities and the obstacles they face.”
Why would Vice President Biden have taken such a significant action on his own? A confidential FBI informant offers an answer – the informant says he was told by the corrupt oligarch who runs Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company on whose board Biden’s son Hunter sat, that the oligarch was coerced into bribing the Bidens, with $5 million to both Joe and his son Hunter.
That’s an impeachable offense if ever there were one.
It’s time to unravel the mystery and get to the bottom of all the lies. An impeachment inquiry will give the House the legal authority it needs to pursue the avenues of investigation it believes warranted. Speaker McCarthy said a few Sundays ago that, “If you look at all the information we’ve been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry.” He’s right.
Jenny Beth Martin is Honorary Chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!