Skip to toolbar

“I review it so you don’t have to watch it!”

“I review it so you don’t have to watch it!”

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Impeachment witness Kent helped bury investigation into Ukrainian election interference

Impeachment testimony witness George Kent testified
today.  He found Trumps request for an
investigation into Burisma and 2016 election interference to be very troubling.

This is an important witness to the Democrats because he is
a supposed expert on the Ukraine, and someone who has been working with them as
a bureaucrat from some time. 

The problem is, George Kent is not an unbiased expert as is being
portrayed.  He actual is a person who has
a lot of incentive to not want to see an investigation into 2016 election
interference.

Kent testified about a lot, but I want to focus on his testimony
about 2016 election interference from the Ukraine.

Here is a short video (start at 2:40) of his comments today

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/george-kent-says-there-is-no-factual-basis-ukraine-interfered-with-the-2016-election-73394757842

Kent claims there is no evidence of this interference from
Ukraine.  That is a lie.  Either he is covering up that evidence, or he
is incredibly inept, as even I, just some regular guy, have seen the evidence.

For example, here is Ukrainian politician Leschenko
admitting in August of 2016, a few months before the election, to a main stream
media outlet in the US, that he and other officials in the Ukraine had interfered
in the election to help Hillary, and would continue to do so, because they
disliked trumps policies.

“For years, Serhiy Leshchenko, a top Ukrainian
anti-corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former president
Viktor Yanukovich. Now, he is focusing on a new perceived pro-Russian threat to
Ukraine: US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s
arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has
spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do
something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however
indirectly, in a US election.

Mr Leshchenko and Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau published
a secret ledger this month that authorities claim show millions of dollars of
off-the-book cash payments to Paul Manafort, Mr Trump’s campaign director,
while he was advising Mr Yanukovich’s Regions party from 2005.

                “A
Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy,”
Mr Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times.
“For me it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is
pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world.””

https://www.ft.com/content/c98078d0-6ae7-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f

Here is an article from Left wing Politico, by now New York
times writer Vogel and a partner, that also show Leschenko admit to interfering,
and show they worked with a DNC operative named Chalupa

“Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary
Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and
suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the
election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the
Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy
in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul
Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the
situation.

A former Ukrainian investigative journalist and current
parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, who was elected in 2014 as part of
Poroshenko’s party, held a news conference to highlight the ledgers, and to
urge Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort.

“I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law — we have the proof from these books,” Leshchenko said during the news conference, which attracted international media coverage. “If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he has to be interrogated into this case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,” Leshchenko added.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

How can a Ukrainian expert not be aware of this interference
when it was public knowledge?

Well it turns out, he was aware.  In fact, he wrote letters asking Ukrainian prosecutors
to stop investigating Ukrainians connected to the Obama administration, and acknowledges
pressure was put on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop investigations into
Ukrainians who were accused (and at one point found guilty) of interfering in
the 2016 US election to help Hillary.

From the excellent John Solomon (you should read this entire
article, its full of good info)

“My sources told me specifically that the U.S. embassy had
pressured the Ukraine prosecutors in 2016 to drop or avoid pursuing several
cases, including one involving the Soros-backed AntiCorruption Action Centre
and two cases involving Ukraine officials who criticized Donald Trump and his
campaign manager Paul Manafort.

To back up their story, my sources provided me a letter
then-embassy official George Kent wrote proving it happened. State officials
authenticated the letter. And Kent recently acknowledged in this testimony he
signed that letter. You can read the letter here.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/real-ukraine-controversy-john-solomon-exposes-how-rogue-us-embassy-conducted-foreign

Now I know people will complain about the source, so here is
kents actual letter, where he asks in the third to last paragraph to stop investigating
the Soros and Obama funded AntAC

State dept officials, including ambassador Yovanavitch, were
pressuring Ukraine to drop investigations into people connected to the Obama administration. 

“I provided the names that Lutsenko claimed had been cited
by the embassy. That senior official said he couldn’t speak to what transpired
in the specific meeting between Yovanovitch and Lutsenko. But that official
then provided me this surprising confirmation: “I can confirm to you that at
least some of those names are names that U.S. embassy Kiev raised with the
General Prosecutor because we were concerned about retribution and unfair
treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”

In other words, State was confirming its own embassy had
engaged in pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop certain law enforcement
cases, just as Lutsenko and other Ukrainian officials had alleged.”

This upset Ukrainians, who didn’t want to be bossed around
and told who they couldn’t prosecute. 
The irony of this is that Kent himself defended Yovanavitch.  And he and Taylor testified that if Ukraine
thought they were being pressured by the US, it would harm them and help Russia.  But that is exactly what Obamas state
department was doing.

Believe not or not, it gets worse.  Kent also testified that he knew the state
dept told Ukrainian prosecutors it was a problem for them to investigate the head
of the NABU, Sytnyk, who was being investigated for interfering in the 2016
election to help Hillary.

“More recently, George Kent, the embassy’s charge d’affaires
in 2016 and now a deputy assistant secretary of state, confirmed in impeachment
testimony that he personally signed the April 2016 letter demanding Ukraine
drop the case against the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.

He also testified he was aware of pressure the U.S. embassy
also applied on Ukraine prosecutors to drop investigations against a journalist
named Vitali Shabunin, a parliamentary member named Sergey Leschenko and a
senior law enforcement official named Artem Sytnyk.

Shabunin helped for the AntiCorruption Action Centre that
Soros funded, and Leschenko and Sytnyk were criticized by a Ukrainian court for
interfering in the 2016 US election by improperly releasing or publicizing
secret evidence in an ongoing case against Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort.

As for Sytnyk, the head of the NABU anticorruption police,
Kent addded: “We warned both Lutsenko and others that efforts to destroy NABU
as an organization, including opening up investigations of Sytnyk, threatened
to unravel a key component of our anti-corruption cooperation.””

Now I know again people will want to attack the source.  So here is a link from Kents closed door testimony
showing he said this. Page 70

Remember, Kent and the rest of the democrats and media are
saying Trump threatened to withhold aid if the Ukraine didn’t do things he
wanted with investigations.

Here we have Kent, the star witness for the democrats,
admitting his department told Ukrainian prosecutors that were investigating
Sytnyk for illegally interfering in the 2016 election to help Hillary, that if
they investigated Sytnyk, it would harm US cooperation with the Ukraine.

That is unbelievable. 
This is in fact a more direct and worse version of exactly what they are
accusing Trump of doing.  Threatening
cooperation if the Ukraine investigated election interference that helped the
democrats ion the 2016 election.

And remember, Sytnyk ran the NABU.  This is the exact same agency that got the
investigation into Burisma, Hunter Bidens sons company, and basically let it go
with only paying small fines.  But Kent
(who helped bury investigations into interference that helped democrats) says
that to investigate Biden or burisma would be corrupt.

No wonder he believes that, he stands to lose big if an
investigation shows election interference, and it becomes public he helped bury
it.  The same with these other witnesses
that were state department officials who were involved with forcing the Ukraine
to bury investigations that could connect to the Obama administration.

Lastly, people have been unable to respond to the evidence
that John Solomon has provided, so they have attacked his character and said he
was lying.  When former Ukrainian prosecutor
Lutsenko spoke up about Obamas state dept pressuring them to drop
investigations into Obama connected people (which Kent admits happened) he was said
to have recanted.  But as even the NYT
was forced to report recently, that’s not exactly true.

“As the story of the U.S. embassy’s pressure spread, a new
controversy erupted. A Ukrainian news outlet claimed Lutsenko recanted his
claim about the “do-not-prosecute” list. I called Lutsenko and he denied
recanting or even changing his story. He gave me this very detailed response
standing by his statements.

But American officials and news media eager to discredit my
reporting piled on, many quoting the Ukrainian outlet without ever contacting
Lutsenko to see if it was true. One of the American outlets that did contact
Lutsenko, the New York Times, belatedly disclosed today that Lutsenko told it,
like he told me, that he stood by his allegation that the ambassador had
provided him names of people and groups she did not want to be targeted by
prosecutors. You can read that here.

It is neither a conspiracy theory nor a debunked or
retracted story. U.S. embassy officials DID apply pressure to try to stop
Ukrainian prosecutors from pursuing certain cases.”

Here is the NYT piece

“In late March, Mr. Solomon and his team published pieces in
The Hill making sensational claims of misconduct at the State Department: The
American ambassador to Ukraine, a career foreign service officer who assumed
her post during the Obama administration, had privately bad-mouthed Mr. Trump
and, separately, had previously provided to Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s
prosecutor general at the time, a list of individuals that Mr. Lutsenko should
not prosecute. In conservative circles, where suspicion of anti-Trump officials
working inside the government runs high, the allegation fit with the narrative
that institutions like the State Department are rife with bad actors.

But there was less to the do-not-prosecute list than it
appeared. The State Department dismissed it as “an outright fabrication.” Mr.
Lutsenko changed his story and acknowledged that what he is quoted describing
in Mr. Solomon’s report — “a list of people whom we should not prosecute” given
to him by the ambassador — did not actually exist.

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr.
Lutsenko blamed the confusion on the interpreter who handled his interview with
The Hill. But he insisted that the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, had in fact
asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the
embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

So no, there wasn’t a physical list on paper, but he stands
by the important allegation, he was told by Yovanavitch to not investigate
certain people, who happened to be close to the Obama admin.

So in conclusion, Kent is a biased witness who is lying when
he says he doesn’t know of evidence of Ukrainian election interference.  He admits the state pressured Ukrainian
prosecutors to drop investigations of soros/Obama funded organization, and even
admits they pressured prosecutors to drop investigations of Ukrainian election interference
to help Hillary.

This is further proof that there needs to be an investigation
into Biden/Obama for having the meddling into investigations in the Ukraine
that could harm them and the Democrats, and proof Trump was right to pursue it
and there is no case for impeachment.

Here is my long video where I go into more detail about this