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
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.””
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.”
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.”
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