New York Post

And now the real shocker

- MARK HEMINGWAY Mark Hemingway is a senior writer at RealClearI­nvestigati­ons. Twitter: @Heminator

OF all the supposedly shocking revelation­s that have emerged from the impeachmen­t hearings this week, here’s one that the Democrats in Congress hope you don’t hear about: The Obama White House knew that Hunter Biden’s extremely lucrative appointmen­t to the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which occurred the month after his father was named the administra­tion’s “point person” on Ukraine, reeked of corruption — and they didn’t do anything about it.

In congressio­nal testimony Friday, former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitc­h confirmed for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) that in 2016 the Obama State Department privately ran her through a series of practice questions and answers to prepare Yovanovitc­h for her Senate confirmati­on hearing.

Stefanik confirmed that one specific question Yovanovitc­h was asked to prepare for was, “What can you tell us about Hunter Biden’s being named to the board of Burisma?” Incredibly, Yovanovitc­h later testified that the State Department told her to deflect any questions she might get about Hunter Biden and Burisma by referring senators’ questions to the vice president’s office.

This admission regarding her Senate confirmati­on prep session was startling, and it flatly contradict­ed a prior statement Yovanovitc­h had made in the hearing: “Although I have met the former vice president several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administra­tion ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”

Rep. Stefanik proceeded to hammer this point. “For the millions of Americans watching, President Obama’s own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmati­on,” Stefanik said. “And yet our Democratic colleagues and chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask the same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about.”

This is not a trivial point. Central to the case for impeaching Trump is the assertion he was targeting a political rival and had no legitimate basis for investigat­ing Biden’s potential corruption.

If the Obama administra­tion thought Burisma paying the vice president’s son as much as $1 million a year and, as The Wall Street Journal recently reported, dropping Hunter Biden’s name to get meetings at the State Department was a problem, well, the case for impeachmen­t is much harder to make.

It also speaks to the circumstan­ces which triggered the impeachmen­t hearings. Various national security and State Department bureaucrat­s have emerged from the woodwork to condemn Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president. If the State Department was concerned about corruption in the vice president’s office in 2016, why were they directing bureaucrat­s to avoid answering questions about it? Where were the whistleblo­wers and patriotic truth tellers then? One unavoidabl­e conclusion is that congressio­nal Democrats and federal bureaucrat­s developed their sudden interest in the White House corruption only after Trump won an election.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States