Biden family profited from prostitution ring in Ukraine


According to two Republicans on the House Oversight Committee who viewed Treasury Department Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), there are serious allegations against members of Biden family, stating they profited from a human trafficking scheme that included a prostitution ring in the United States and other countries including Russia and Ukraine.

Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Nancy Mace of South Carolina said, bank documents contain “jaw-dropping” details of the lucrative foreign business deals of the Biden family.

Marjorie Taylor Greene after reviewing the SARs said, “I just saw evidence of human trafficking. This involved prostitutes, not only from here in the United States but foreign countries like Russia and Ukraine”.

The foreign business deals, Taylor Greene said, involved Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and “many more family members extending past Hunter Biden and his immediate family”.

Congresswomen Greene and Mace are on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, which is investigating the Biden family’s foreign business deals to determine if Joe Biden participated or had knowledge of them.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, in a video posted on Twitter, said records she reviewed showed “an enterprise wrapped around Joe Biden, involving not only multiple family members more than we thought there were, but other people as well as just a complete conglomerate of LLC shell companies where money was passing through foreign countries — China, Ukraine, but many more countries than just those”.

Nancy Mace said she came to a similar conclusion after reviewing 100 suspicious activity reports: “I have to tell you, there are more Bidens involved than we knew previously. And every time you look under a stone, there’s so much more you have to investigate because it’s wild the number of family members involved”.

Congresswoman Nancy Mace said the money involved in the Biden family business transactions “is astronomical”. She also said the records show “the source of the funding, where the money’s going, the shell companies, prostitution rings, etc. It’s insanity to me that it’s not been investigated in the way that it should be”.

Oversight Committee chair Congressman James Comer of Kentucky said this week the committee’s recent review of the SARs determined nine members of the Biden clan “may have benefited” from business deals orchestrated by Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, and several business associates.

Congressman James Comer said, “The Biden family enterprise is centered on Joe Biden’s political career and connections, and it has generated an exorbitant amount of money for the Biden family. The Oversight Committee will continue to pursue additional bank records to follow the Bidens’ tangled web of financial transactions to determine if the Biden family has been targeted by foreign actors and if there is a national security threat”.

Democratic lawmakers who serve on the committee did not accompany Republicans to the Treasury Department to review the Suspicious Activity Reports.

Joe Biden has denied being involved or knowing anything about the business dealings of his son, brother and their associates. But the records suggest he played a central role in the family’s business deals, whether or not he knew about them.

Bank records and other evidence revealed so far show the Biden family and their associates made deals with foreign nationals from China, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan and several other countries. The transactions date back to Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president.

Hunter Biden, Burisma and corruption

In 2020, the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in a report titled ‘Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on US Government Policy and Related Concerns’ said:

In late 2013 and into 2014, mass protests erupted in Kyiv, Ukraine, demanding integration into western economies and an end to systemic corruption that had plagued the country. At least 82 people were killed during the protests, which culminated on Feb. 21 when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych abdicated by fleeing the country. Less than two months later, over the span of only 28 days, significant events involving the Bidens unfolded.

On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.” The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.

The 2014 protests in Kyiv came to be known as the Revolution of Dignity — a revolution against corruption in Ukraine. Following that revolution, Ukrainian political figures were desperate for US support. Zlochevsky would have made sure relevant Ukrainian officials were well aware of Hunter’s appointment to Burisma’s board as leverage. Hunter Biden’s position on the board created an immediate potential conflict of interest that would prove to be problematic for both US and Ukrainian officials and would affect the implementation of Ukraine policy.

The Chairmen’s investigation into potential conflicts of interest began in August 2019, with Chairman Grassley’s letter to the Department of Treasury regarding potential conflicts of interest with respect to Obama administration policy relating to the Henniges transaction.1 During the Obama administration, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approved a transaction that gave control over Henniges, an American maker of antivibration technologies with military applications, to a Chinese government-owned aviation company and a China-based investment firm with established ties to the Chinese government. One of the companies involved in the Henniges transaction was a billion-dollar private investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). BHR was formed in November 2013 by a merger between the Chinese-government-linked firm Bohai Capital and a company named Rosemont Seneca Partners. Rosemont Seneca was formed in 2009 by Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, by Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

Access to relevant documents and testimony has been persistently hampered by criminal investigations, impeachment proceedings, COVID-19, and several instances of obstructive behavior. Accordingly, this investigation has taken longer than it should have. The Chairmen’s efforts have always been driven by our belief that the public has the right to know about wrongdoing and conflicts of interest occurring within government, and especially those conflicts brought about by the actions of governmental officials. This is a good-government oversight investigation that relies on documents and testimony from US agencies and officials, not a Russian disinformation campaign, as our Democratic colleagues have falsely stated.

What the Chairmen discovered during the course of this investigation is that the Obama administration knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine. Moreover, this investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president’s son joined the board of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. And, as will be discussed in later sections, Hunter Biden was not the only Biden who cashed in on Joe Biden’s vice presidency.

Key findings

  • In early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all US officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine”.
  • In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining US policy in Ukraine.
  • Although Kent believed that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was awkward for all US officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals — Kent and former US Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein — who raised concerns to Vice President Joe Biden (Hochstein) or his staff (Kent).
  • The awkwardness for Obama administration officials continued well past his presidency. Former Secretary of State John Kerry had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s role on 5 Burisma’s board, but when asked about it at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H. on Dec. 8, 2019, Kerry falsely said, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No”. Evidence to the contrary is detailed in Section V.
  • Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testified that confronting oligarchs would send an anticorruption message in Ukraine. Kent told the Committees that Zlochevsky was an “odious oligarch”. However, in December 2015, instead of following US objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden’s staff advised him to avoid commenting on Zlochevsky and recommended he say, “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals”.
  • Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI.
  • Hunter Biden was a US Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009 to July 8, 2014. A day before his last trip as a protectee, Time published an article describing Burisma’s ramped up lobbying efforts to US officials and Hunter’s involvement in Burisma’s board. Before ending his protective detail, Hunter Biden received Secret Service protection on trips to multiple foreign locations, including Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence, Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como.
  • Andrii Telizhenko, the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation, met with Obama administration officials, including Elisabeth Zentos, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, at least 10 times. A Democrat lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, contracted with Telizhenko from 2016 to 2017 and continued to request his assistance as recent as the summer of 2019. A recent news article detailed other extensive contacts between Telizhenko and Obama administration officials.
  • In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
  • Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
  • Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.
  • Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
  • Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.
  • Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring”.

Conflicts of interest

Federal regulation prohibits federal government employees from “using public office for private gain … or for the private gain of … relatives”. This regulation also seeks “to ensure that the performance of official duties does not give rise to an appearance of the use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment”. This regulation, however, does not apply to the president or vice president.

Other federal regulations require only the “consideration” of an appearance of a conflict of interest. “Where an employee … knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship [e.g.,] is or represents a party to [a particular matter involving specific parties], and where the employee determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality on the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter unless he has informed [a designated superior] and received authorization”.

According to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), these rules and regulations help to ensure that federal employees “fulfill their responsibility to endeavor to act at all times in the public’s interest and avoid losing impartiality or appearing to lose impartiality in carrying out their official duties”. In the context of US foreign policy, the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) sets forth the policies and procedures for State Department employees working abroad. The FAM includes ethical regulations that take into account foreign policy considerations and treaty and statutory obligations. Specifically, when a US citizen employee of the State Department is serving abroad and subject to the authority of that country’s Chief of Mission, that employee’s family members may be prohibited from employment or other outside activity in any foreign country if the Chief of Mission in that country determines it could damage the interests of the United States. The FAM also requires employees to bring any violations of the FAM or any other applicable regulations to the attention of the appropriate official.

Although OGE’s authority to investigate and recommend solutions to most employees for conflicts of interest issues is well-established, Congress did not extend this authority to the president and vice president in OGE’s establishment statute. This does not mean there is an absence of any authority to hold the President and Vice President accountable for conflict of interest issues; rather, it demonstrates that the responsibility for holding the President and Vice President responsible for conduct that implicates conflicts of interest lies elsewhere, namely, with Congress and the American people.

In certain instances, like self-dealing, the harm is plain. In others, the harm — a loss or apparent loss of impartiality — may be less concrete, but the effect is still the same. When the impartiality of decision makers is drawn into question, it creates a chilling effect on the credibility of their decision-making processing and the ultimate decision. That, in turn, could undermine the effectiveness of US policy. Although these consequences may sometimes be difficult to measure or quantify, they certainly have an effect, or else there would be little reason to regulate them in the first instance. In the context of foreign affairs, because these subtleties matter, the FAM provides the Chief of Mission with the discretion to make these assessments.

The Senate Committee report said, “Vice President Joe Biden’s office and the State Department officials were aware of but ignored concerns relating to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board”.

It further said:

In early 2015, senior State Department official George Kent raised concerns to staff in the Office of the Vice President about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent testified that he never heard anything back from the vice president’s office, and although Kent advised that Hunter Biden should step down from Burisma’s board to avoid the perception of a potential conflict of interest, his recommendation was not followed.

Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board continued to be an issue State Department officials had to manage when executing US/Ukraine policy. More than a year after Kent reported his concerns to the vice president’s staff, he wrote to his superiors that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was “very awkward” to those on the front lines pushing anticorruption efforts in Ukraine on a daily basis.25 Kent testified that he felt the need to “prepare everybody for ‘what about-ism,’ because we’re pushing what’s right … and we have to be prepared for people who are critics, are opponents, to say, ‘Well, what about? What about Hunter Biden?’”

Indeed, Kent testified further that he “would have advised any American not to get on the board of Zlochevsky’s company”. The Committees are also aware of at least one other senior State Department official, Amos Hochstein, who raised concerns directly to Vice President Biden about potential conflicts of interest relating to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board.28 Although Hochstein declined to testify about the substance of his conversation with Vice President Biden, the New Yorker reported that Hochstein “did not go so far as to recommend that Hunter leave the board”.

The Committees found that neither the Office of the Vice President nor the State Department ever took any action following these complaints.

According to Kent, in early 2015 when he was still Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kyiv, he learned that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma. Kent stated, “soon after that, in a briefing call with the National Security staff in the Office of the Vice President on other matters, in February 2015, I raised my concern that Hunter Biden’s status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest”. Kent continued:

I said that I had learned that Hunter Biden had been appointed to a board of this company, that I had just raised US concerns about the owner of the company, who we believed had been engaged in money-laundering. … The bottom line was, I said I believe that this creates the perception of a potential conflict of interest, given Vice President Biden’s role and his very strong advocacy for anticorruption action, and that I thought that someone needed to talk to Hunter Biden, and he should [step] down from the board of Burisma.

Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma continued to be an “awkward” conflict of interest State Department officials had to manage.

Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma appeared in numerous State Department records, particularly when State officials discussed the company, its owner, and anticorruption efforts in Ukraine. According to records reviewed by the Committees, in 2016, Kent mentioned Hunter Biden when discussing Burisma with his colleagues. Kent told the Committees:

For me it’s preparing everybody for “what about-ism”, because we’re pushing what’s right, and we do what’s right, and we have to be prepared for people who are critics, are opponents, to say, “Well, what about? What about Hunter Biden?”

So there was no time, as I’ve testified, that the US government, the US embassy ever made a decision about Zlochevsky or Burisma where we took the presence of a private citizen on the board into account. We made the decision on the merits. But others might think otherwise. And so everyone needed to be aware of what we were dealing with as we made the right decisions.

The extent to which Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board affected US policy toward Ukraine is not clear. But what is clear from the records, however, is that State Department officials, particularly Kent himself, regularly considered how Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma might affect the execution of US policy. Moreover, as described previously, this included having to respond to Russian actors attempting to exploit Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board to drive a wedge between Ukrainian and the US in an effort to undermine US policy toward Ukraine.

For example, Kent raised Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma during multiple discussions over emails involving the Municipal Energy Reform Program (MERP). In those emails, Kent asked his colleagues, “How have we traditionally treated/engaged Burisma, given the Zlochevsky connection, but also perhaps US involvement beyond Hunter Biden?” In another email chain, Kent also pointed out that “[Zlochevsky] put Hunter Biden on the board of his Burisma Energy company”. When inquiring about the extent to which State Department officials researched Burisma’s past, in order to determine whether to associate with the company, Kent asked his colleagues whether any ‘“know your partner’ due diligence was done” before the partnership between MERP and Burisma was established. Kent then described old news stories involving the company: “Zlochevsky as a corrupt mal actor was a 2014 story [and] his control of Burisma, and the very sticky wicket of the Hunter Biden connection on Burisma’s board was circulating in 2015”. As part of that same email chain, Kent asked his colleagues if the US government continues its association with Burisma:

Would we want an article on the front page of the Washington Post (and in this case, the Kyiv Post, and on the FB pages of Sergiy Leshchenko and Mustafa Nayyem) commenting about this public private partnership with Burisma, the link to Hunter Biden, and the link to Zlochevsky, who almost certainly paid off the PGO in December 2014 (I had the then First deputy PG Danylenko tell me the bribe was $7 million) to have the case against him closed and his $23 million in assets frozen in the UK unfrozen?

So even though the total amount of time State Department officials spent accounting for Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma is unclear, the records show that it was an issue that had to be addressed repeatedly.

More than one year after Kent reported his concerns about Hunter Biden to the vice president’s office, he once again raised the issue — this time to his superiors at the State Department.

On Sept. 6, 2016, Kent wrote an email to senior State Department officials, including Deputy Assistant Secretary Bridget Brink and US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, and offered his contemporaneous view of Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma. Kent wrote, “the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all US officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine”. In testimony Kent expanded on this comment:

I meant that people who talk the talk need to walk the walk, and for the US government, collectively, when we talk about the need to have high standards of integrity, again, as I’ve said, the presence of [Hunter Biden] on the board created the perception of a potential conflict of interest.

The Committees learned, through document requests, that Victoria Nuland, thenAssistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, also received a forwarded copy of Kent’s September 2016 email outlining his concerns about Hunter Biden being on Burisma’s board. Nuland testified that she “was always open to hearing the concerns of subordinates and trying to address them in an open and transparent manner”. Yet when the Committee asked Nuland to explain what actions she took when she received Kent’s email, she said that Kent’s concerns about Hunter Biden were “clearly, way deep down in an email, late in 2016” and “they were not brought to my specific attention by George Kent, who is an old friend and had plenty of opportunity to do so, had he so wanted”. Despite senior State Department officials clearly being made aware of the situation, Kent’s concerns remained unaddressed.

Hochstein spoke to Vice President Biden about concerns relating to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board because, according to Hochstein, Russians were using it to advance disinformation.

According to testimony and public reports, Hochstein, then-U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board directly to Vice President Biden. Nuland told the Committees:

Amos Hochstein had had a conversation with the vice president and his staff about this, and he also had another conversation on the plane ride to Ukraine for that December 2015 trip.

Public reporting also confirms Hochstein’s discussion with Vice President Biden. According to one report, “Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden, but did not go so far as to recommend that Hunter leave the board”. When Hochstein testified before the Committees, he declined on advice of counsel to testify about the substance of his conversation with Vice President Biden. The New Yorker, however, reported that Hochstein “did not go so far as to recommend that Hunter leave the board”. It is unclear how Vice President Biden responded to this conversation.

According to Hochstein, he raised this issue with Vice President Biden because he was concerned that the Russians were using Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma to sow disinformation. Hochstein recounted that he spoke with Vice President Biden in the West Wing of the White House in October 2015.52 When asked why he decided to raise the issue of Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board with Vice President Biden, Hochstein testified:

Hochstein: We were starting to think about a trip to Ukraine, and I wanted to make sure that he [Vice President Biden] was aware that there was an increase in chatter on media outlets close to Russians and corrupt oligarchs-owned media outlets about undermining his message—to try to undermine his [Vice President Biden’s] message and including Hunter Biden being part of the board of Burisma.

Hochstein also raised his concerns about Russian disinformation with Hunter Biden. Shortly after his conversation with Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden contacted Hochstein and asked to meet. According to Hochstein, Hunter became aware of Hochstein’s West Wing conversation with the Vice President, who had mentioned it to Hunter. 54 Hochstein described what he and Hunter Biden discussed at this November 2015 meeting at a coffee shop in Georgetown:

Question: And could you expand on that? Why did you discuss Burisma with him [Hunter Biden]?

Hochstein: Well, he [Hunter Biden] asked me for a meeting. I think he wanted to know my views on Burisma and Zlochevsky. And so I shared with him that the Russians were using his name in order to sow disinformation—attempt to sow disinformation among Ukrainians.

During the November 2015 conversation with Hunter Biden, Hochstein did not recommend that Hunter leave Burisma’s board because he did not “believe that was my place to have that discussion, one way or the other.

Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board hindered the efforts of dedicated career-service individuals who were fighting for anticorruption measures in Ukraine. Because the vice president’s son had a direct link to a corrupt company and its owner, State Department officials were required to maintain situational awareness of Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma.

Unfortunately, US officials had no other choice but to endure the “awkwardness” of continuing to push an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine while the vice president’s son sat on the board of a Ukrainian company with a corrupt owner, earning tens of thousands of dollars a month. As Kent testified, he “would have advised any American not to get on the board of Zlochevsky’s company”. Yet even though Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board cast a shadow over the work of those advancing anticorruption reforms in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals who raised concerns to their superiors. Despite the efforts of these individuals, their concerns appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

John Kerry lied about Biden family’s financial crime

According to the US Senate, on December 8, 2019, a reporter asked former Secretary of State John Kerry about his awareness of Hunter Biden on Burisma’s board during his time at the State Department. John Kerry responded, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No”. The reporter pressed for more information and Kerry said, “What would I know about any—no. Why would I know about any company or any individual? No. The answer is no. No communication. No nothing”. Testimony and documents obtained by the Committees call into question the accuracy of Kerry’s statement. On May 13, 2014, the day after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz — who was also Hunter Biden’s business partner — emailed to inform Kerry’s chief of staff, and to distance himself, from that decision. Moreover, in May 2014, Secretary Kerry’s chief of staff, David Wade, briefed him about press inquiries specifically relating to Heinz, Hunter Biden, and Burisma.

Separately, State Department officials wrote that they sent the secretary articles with the headlines, “Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas company’s board”, “Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas producer board”, and “White House says no issue with Biden’s son, Ukraine gas company”. Accordingly, these records suggest that John Kerry did, in fact, know about Hunter Biden and Burisma.

In May 2014, Wade, Secretary Kerry’s chief of staff, briefed him about press inquiries relating to Heinz, Hunter Biden, and Burisma.

On May 13, 2014, State Department officials began fielding press inquiries relating to Hunter Biden joining Burisma’s board and the extent to which Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Heinz, was involved. That day Heinz emailed Secretary Kerry’s chief of staff about Burisma’s announcement in an apparent attempt to distance himself from Hunter Biden’s decision. Heinz wrote to Special Assistant Matt Summers and Chief of Staff Wade:

Apparently Devon [Archer] and Hunter [Biden] both joined the board of Burisma and a press release went out today. I cant to speak [sic] why they decided to, but there was no investment by our firm in their company.

Wade testified that he did not recall receiving this email from Heinz, but he did, to the best of his recollection, reach out to speak with Heinz the following day to “try to confirm since we were being asked whether he, or that Rosemont Seneca was buying or investing in Burisma”. Wade testified that he spoke to Heinz on May 14, 2014, and confirmed, based only on Heinz’s assurances, that “Rosemont Seneca was not involved” with Burisma.

According to Wade, that same day he spoke to Secretary Kerry and “let him know that Chris Heinz and Rosemont Seneca were not involved [with Burisma], that the media questions [about Rosemont Seneca buying or investing in Burisma] were inaccurate, and that Chris Heinz was not buying or investing in a Ukrainian natural gas company, but that my understanding was that … Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, according to the stories, that that was accurate, that they were … joining a board”. Wade confirmed that Secretary Kerry learned about Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma through him:

Question: What was Secretary Kerry’s reaction to you informing him of these news inquiries about Mr. Heinz and the additional information regarding Mr. Archer’s [and] Mr. Hunter Biden’s connection and involvement with Burisma?

Wade: He knew nothing about it.

Question: So he learned about this information from you?

Wade: I believe so, yeah.

Question: And when you told him that the information that you were able to confirm with Mr. Heinz that Rosemont Seneca had … not invested or bought Burisma, what was Mr. Kerry’s reaction to that?

Wade: If I recall, his reaction was that he was comfortable answering a press question if he got it.

Question: [T]hat he was comfortable answering the media question regarding what?

Wade: Regarding … Christopher Heinz or Rosemont Seneca investing in — in a Ukrainian natural gas company or buying a Ukrainian natural gas company.

Question: And did you discuss with Mr. Kerry what his response to that type of inquiry would have been?

Wade: I’m sure — I’m sure I did. I don’t — I don’t … remember those details of the conversation.

In May 2014, State Department staff sent news articles to Secretary Kerry relating to Hunter Biden and Burisma.

David Thorne, who served as a senior adviser to Secretary Kerry, informed Wade that he sent the following collection of press clips and articles to the secretary on May 14, 2014:

Screenshot of Shate Department’s internet email communication centering Hunter Biden’s affiliations with Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Thorne forwarded these clips to Wade and wrote, “I sent it to JK”. Wade told the Committees that “JK” stood for “John Kerry”. The headlines of the articles that Thorne sent to Kerry included, “Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas company’s board,” “Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas producer board,” and “White House says no issue with Biden’s son, Ukraine gas company”.

The Senate committee in its report said, “Former Secretary Kerry’s December 2019 denial of having any knowledge about Hunter Biden or Burisma is inconsistent with the evidence uncovered by the Committees. Kerry was briefed about Hunter Biden, Burisma and Heinz the day after Burisma announced Hunter Biden joined its board. Additionally, Secretary Kerry’s senior advisor sent him press clips and articles relating to Hunter Biden’s board membership. This appears to be yet another example of highranking Obama administration officials blatantly ignoring Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma”.

The Senate committee further said, “State Department officials viewed Zlochevsky as a corrupt “odious oligarch” but Vice President Biden was advised not to accuse Zlochevsky of corruption”.

It said:

The State Department clearly viewed Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, as corrupt, and did not want to have any association with either one. For example, as soon as Deputy Chief of Mission George Kent learned of a de minimis USAID arrangement with Burisma, and succeeded in severing that relationship. As US officials pressed Ukrainian officials to hold Zlochevsky accountable for his actions, Vice President Biden was “leading the policy charge” of pushing anticorruption measures in Ukraine, which included confronting oligarchs. Yet as staff prepared talking points for Vice President Biden to answer questions about whether he viewed Zlochevsky as corrupt, they suggested that he “not … get into naming names or accusing individuals”. Biden’s spokeswoman told reporters, “the vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company”. This stands in stark contrast to the decision of then-Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt to call out Zlochevsky by name as an example of corruption in a September 2015 speech. Biden’s unwillingness to confront a man whom State officials considered to be an “odious oligarch” demonstrated a lack of leadership, but also raises a serious question about why Vice President Biden would avoid linking Zlochevsky with corruption.

State Department officials viewed Zlochevsky and Burisma as corrupt.

According to testimony and documents obtained by the Committees, State Department officials viewed Burisma and its owner, Zlochevsky, as corrupt. Insofar as the link between Zlochevsky and corruption was not already clear to State Department officials, in early 2015 they learned that Zlochevsky likely bribed Ukrainian prosecutors to interfere in a United Kingdom criminal proceeding against him, which was subsequently closed. (Section VII of this report will describe this bribe and its consequences in more detail.) In short, State Department officials’ understanding of Zlochevsky’s actions relating to the U.K. criminal case strongly influenced their perspective of him and Burisma. Below are several examples of State Department officials sharing their perspective of Zlochevsky and Burisma:

“Zlochevsky was viewed as corrupt, not just in Ukraine but by the USG/FBI” – George Kent, Department of State, Sept. 2016.

We have extensive concerns about corruption in Ukraine, and we believe Mr. Zlochevsky is an example”. – Memo to then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Dec. 2016.

“Burisma’s owner was a poster child for corrupt behavior”. – George Kent Testimony to the Committees.

“I would have advised any American not to get on the board of Zlochevsky’s company”. – George Kent Testimony to the Committees.

“The proliferation of Ukrainian companies clearly (and not so clearly owned/controlled by odious oligarchs or those who outright stole assets and absconded (like Zlochevsky) is likely a long one”. – George Kent, Department of State, Aug. 2016.

“Throughout 2015 and 2016, U.S. officials, particularly those at the US Embassy in K[y]iv, consistently pressed Ukrainian officials to hold Zlochevsky to account and made clear our negative view about Burisma”. – George Kent Testimony to the Committees.

“…our focus was on [Zlochevsky’s] corrupt acts as minister when he abused the office to award national gas exploration contracts to companies that he controlled through shell companies”. – George Kent Testimony to the Committees.

“[I]n the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the UK authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people.” – Geoffrey Pyatt, then-US Ambassador to Ukraine, Sept. 2015.

The closing of the UK case against Zlochevsky was a “gross miscarriage of justice that undermined months of U.S. assistance … [a]fter the FBI and MI5 spent months and arguably millions working to try to put together the first possible asset recover case (against former Minister of Ecology Zlochevsky)”. – George Kent, State Department, Aug. 2016.

“[The] US and UK were cooperating on a case to seize [Zlochevsky’s] corrupt assets overseas (which had passed through the US)”. – Geoffrey Pyatt, then-US Ambassador to Ukraine, Dec. 2015.

There is “a moral hazard associated with publicly associating/promoting our assistance projects with companies/individuals seen in Ukrainian society as corrupt/compromised.” – George Kent on whether any US agency should cooperate or associate with Burisma or Zlochevsky, Aug. 2016.

“[United States Government (USG)] cooperation on the project [with Burisma] would make us look bad. Not to mention the [Members of Parliament] on the energy committee and others would wonder how we speak about anti-corruption [sic], but work with those that were associated with corrupt practices.” – Redacted State Department official in an email to colleagues, Sept. 2016.

“[There] is a clear link between the company and its primary owner … From the rumors that we hear in the energy sector, there is no sense that Burisma has changed how it conducts its business … I fall on the side of not having anything to do with the company to avoid undermining our broader efforts to promote transparency and [anticorruption]”. – Redacted State Department official in an email to colleagues, Sept. 2016.

State Department officials viewed Vice President Biden as a “warrior” and “leading the policy charge” on anticorruption measures in Ukraine.

According to testimony, former State Department officials saw Vice President [Joe] Biden as a leading US figure who pushed for anticorruption measures in Ukraine. Kent testified, “Vice President Biden was leading the policy charge, pushing President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to take more decisive anticorruption action”. Ambassador Victoria Nuland called Vice President Biden a “warrior” on this issue and said, “I was proud to work with Vice President Biden on Ukraine policy and especially on trying to help the Ukrainian period [sic] root out corruption in their country”.

On December 9, 2015, Vice President Biden spoke in Ukraine in front of the parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, and told the members that they are facing a “test of courage” and have an “obligation” to Ukrainians to reform their country to “build a united, democratic Ukrainian nation that can stand the test of time”. In doing so, Biden stated that Ukrainians have “a historic battle against corruption”. He said “oligarchs and non-oligarchs must play by the same rules”. Biden called on the Rada to “seize the opportunity. Build a better future for the people of Ukraine”. Biden’s speech, which pushed anticorruption measures, was, according to Nuland, “very powerful and powerfully received by the Rada”. Yet, while Vice President Biden called for members of the Rada to have courage to confront corruption in Ukraine, the vice president’s staff was advising otherwise.

Vice President Biden’s staff recommended he not link Zlochevsky with corruption.

Nuland told the Committees that by confronting oligarchs, the US would send an anticorruption message. Yet as Vice President Biden’s staff responded to press inquiries relating to Burisma and Zlochevsky, one staffer wrote, “I am concerned about getting into anything relating to Mr. Zlochevsky directly”. Just a few days before the vice president gave his December 2015 speech at the Rada pushing anticorruption measures, his staff prepared talking points for him and included a response to the question: “Do you think Zlochevsky is corrupt?” His staff wrote:

I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals. We have been working consistently to push the Ukrainian leadership to make meaningful changes in the Prosecutor General’s office and across the government to help ensure that the Ukrainian people are represented fairly and fully.

It is clear that members of Vice President Biden’s staff wanted to distance him from an individual whom the State Department clearly believed was corrupt and an individual who employed his son. This stands in stark contrast to then-Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, who identified Zlochevsky by name as a corrupt actor during a September 2015 speech in Odessa, Ukraine. But the Committees were not able to locate any public statements Vice President Biden gave from 2014 to 2016 in which he called Zlochevsky corrupt. Instead, in December 2015, Biden’s spokeswoman told reporters, “the vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company”.

In his December 2015 speech at the Rada, Vice President Biden told members to have courage to confront corruption and change the course of history for their country. Yet when it came to calling out an individual whom the State Department viewed as a “corrupt” and “odious oligarch”, Vice President [Joe] Biden’s staff advised him to not accuse Zlochevsky of corruption. In December 2015, while in Ukraine, Biden did not link Zlochevsky with corruption and did not demonstrate the same level of courageousness that he encouraged Ukrainian political leaders to pursue.

Several witnesses highlighted efforts by certain US officials to enable a successful investigation of Zlochevsky, and also noted that the US decision to condition a $1 billion loan guarantee was made in part because of the then-Ukrainian prosecutor general’s failure to pursue a case against Zlochevsky. But at the end of the day, between 2014 through 2017, despite the concerted effort of many US officials, not one of the three different Ukrainian prosecutor generals held Zlochevsky accountable.

While Hunter Biden served on Burisma’s board, Burisma’s owner Zlochevsky allegedly paid a US$7 million bribe to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s office to close the case.

Careful scrutiny of the Senate report clearly sheds lights into a number of issues, which include, Biden family’s corruption centering Ukrainian Burisma company; then Secretary of State John Kerry’s suspicious role centering this company as his stepson was also involved with this company; and Victoria Nuland’s dubious role in this issue. In my opinion, once these matters are properly investigated, this may finally become a bigger case than the infamous WaterGate scandal. Lots of people, including Joe Biden and John Kerry may face legal actions. But here one important question is – who is bell the cats?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here