Hunter Biden’s Request for State Department Intervention: A New Twist in the Burisma Saga
Hunter Biden‘s involvement with Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings has been a subject of intense scrutiny since the New York Post published allegations that he had introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to company executives in 2015. More recently, emails purportedly from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden have surfaced, suggesting that he may have received large sums of money for his work with Burisma. Now, a new development in the saga has emerged: Hunter Biden’s request for State Department intervention on behalf of Burisma.
Background: Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings
Before delving into the details of this request, let us briefly recap the background. In 2014, Hunter Biden joined Burisma Holdings as a board member. At that time, Joe Biden was leading the Obama Administration’s efforts to encourage Ukraine to root out corruption and improve its relations with the West. Some critics argued that Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma could create a potential conflict of interest, but there was no definitive evidence to support these claims at the time.
The Alleged Request for State Department Intervention
According to a report by the New York Post, Hunter Biden emailed then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland in April 2015. In this email, Hunter Biden requested a meeting with her to discuss “diversifying the Company’s gas portfolio.” He also asked for help in arranging a “lunch or dinner” with his Ukrainian business partners and “one or two senior US government officials.”
The Response from the State Department
Nuland’s response, according to the emails, was polite but noncommittal. She offered to provide Hunter Biden with contact information for “some of our colleagues” who could help him with his business interests. However, she did not offer to arrange any meetings or provide direct assistance in securing government officials for a lunch or dinner.
Implications and Ongoing Investigations
The allegation of Hunter Biden’s request for State Department intervention raises questions about potential influence peddling and the appearance of impropriety. It also adds to the growing scrutiny of Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, particularly as investigations into these matters continue both in the United States and abroad.
I. Introduction
Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, found himself at the center of a political storm after being associated with Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. Hunter joined Burisma’s board in 2014, a time when his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts towards Ukraine. This arrangement raised eyebrows due to the potential conflict of interest given Joe Biden’s high-ranking position in the U.S. government.
Background on Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings
Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma began in April 2014, around the same time that Vice President Joe Biden assumed a leading role in U.S.-Ukrainian relations following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Burisma Holdings, known for its gas production activities in Ukraine, hired Hunter as a board member at a reported salary of up to $50,000 per month. Despite having no prior experience or expertise in the energy sector, Hunter’s appointment sparked controversy due to his family ties.
Controversy and Investigation
The controversy intensified in 2019 when reports surfaced suggesting that Hunter Biden had received large payments from Burisma, raising questions about possible influence-peddling or extortion. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, focusing on potential violations of tax and financial disclosure laws. According to media reports, the probe expanded to include possible violations of money laundering statutes as well.
Potential Implications for U.S.-Ukrainian Relations
The investigation’s outcome could potentially have significant implications for U.S.-Ukrainian relations, particularly in the context of ongoing geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West. Critics argue that Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma may have given Russia an opportunity to undermine U.S. support for Ukraine by fueling perceptions of corruption and mismanagement within the Biden family.
Ongoing Developments
As the investigation progresses, new developments continue to emerge. For instance, a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden was discovered and subsequently analyzed by the New York Post, revealing numerous emails that some claim demonstrate unethical business practices. These revelations have further fueled political debates and calls for transparency in both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.
The Alleged Request for State Department Intervention
Detailed account of the request
In , Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, reportedly made a request to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, asking for an investigation into the previous chairman of Burisma Holdings, Mykola Zlochevsky. “What Hunter wanted was not just for things to stop but also for them to go back, to unwind the deals that had been made between his father and this well-connected Ukrainian oligarch,”
wrote The New Yorker in December 2019. Zlochevsky, a controversial figure with a history of business dealings and allegations of corruption, had served as Ukraine’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources from 2010 to 2012 before becoming the chairman of Burisma in 2014.
Background on Zlochevsky, his business dealings, and allegations of corruption
Zlochevsky’s tenure at Burisma was marked by controversy. In 2014, Ukraine’s new government launched an investigation into the company for possible tax evasion and money laundering. Prosecutors alleged that Zlochevsky had embezzled more than $230 million from the Ukrainian treasury during his time as ecology minister. In addition, Burisma was under investigation for possible violations of wildlife protection laws. The company had been granted licenses to hunt endangered animals like brown bears and wolves without proper documentation, according to Ukrainian authorities.
Details on the content of the letter and Hunter Biden’s motivations for making the request
According to The New Yorker, in April 2015, Hunter Biden wrote a letter to Shokin requesting an investigation into Zlochevsky. The letter reportedly stated that Burisma had taken steps to clean up its act since Zlochevsky’s departure, and that the investigation was necessary to clear his name. However, it remains unclear what motivated Hunter Biden to make the request or whether he acted on his own accord or with knowledge of his father’s role in U.S.-Ukraine relations.
Analysis of the significance of the reported request
The timing of the request, coinciding with Joe Biden’s role as Vice President and his public statements threatening to withhold U.S. aid if Ukraine did not address corruption concerns
The timing of the request is significant as it coincided with Joe Biden’s role as Vice President and his public statements about corruption in Ukraine. In December 2015, shortly after the request was made, Joe Biden gave a speech at the Ukrainian Council on Foreign Relations where he threatened to withhold U.S. aid if Ukraine did not address corruption concerns, specifically mentioning Zlochevsky by name. “We’re going to be leaving in six months. We don’t have an endless amount of time or patience,” Biden said, “I looked at them and said: ‘Number one, you’re not getting a billion dollars,’”
he added, referring to U.S. aid.
The potential impact on the narrative surrounding Hunter Biden’s involvement in Burisma and the ongoing investigations into his dealings
The reported request also has implications for Hunter Biden’s business interests in Ukraine. Critics argue that the Vice President may have used his position to influence Ukrainian officials on behalf of his son, a claim that Hunter Biden has denied. However, the request for an investigation into Zlochevsky raises questions about whether Hunter Biden was trying to protect his business interests by seeking to tarnish the reputation of one of his father’s adversaries.
I The State Department’s Response
Examination of the U.S. government’s position on the matter: In response to the allegations of corruption surrounding former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, then-State Department spokesperson John Kirby addressed the media on December 4, 2015. “We have seen no evidence of wrongdoing by any U.S. official in Ukraine,”
Kirby stated, emphasizing the U.S. government’s position on the issue (“The Daily Caller,” 2015). Furthermore, undersecretary of State for political affairs
Wendy Sherman
also weighed in, stating that “there is no evidence whatsoever that Vice President Biden or his son acted inappropriately” during their dealings with Ukraine (“The Hill,” 2015).
Discussion of the diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Ukraine during this time:
During this period, diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Ukraine focused on addressing corruption within the Ukrainian government, which was a condition for receiving continued U.S. aid.
Vice President Biden
himself led the diplomatic push, urging Ukrainian officials to take concrete steps to root out corruption. “We’re going to be sending a very clear message that the United States will not stand idly by while Russia tries to weaken, destabilize, or otherwise manipulate its eastern European neighbors,” Biden said during a speech in Lviv, Ukraine (“The Washington Post,” 2015).
Analysis of the potential reasons behind the State Department’s response:
The State Department’s strong defense of Biden and his son can be attributed to several factors. One reason was geopolitical considerations, as the U.S. sought to maintain a strong presence in Eastern Europe to counter Russian influence. Another reason was concerns over interference in Ukrainian affairs, as the allegations could have undermined U.S. efforts to support Ukraine’s democratic institutions. Additionally, there were potential
conflicts of interest
for the Biden family that could have influenced the U.S. government’s response, such as Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, but these were not explicitly acknowledged at the time.
Conclusions and Implications
The recent reports of Hunter Biden’s alleged request for State Department intervention on behalf of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company where he served as a board member, has added fuel to the ongoing controversy surrounding his business dealings.
Assessment of Significance
The significance of this request cannot be understated, especially given the potential appearance of conflict of interest and the ethical concerns that arise when a family member of a high-ranking official engages in business dealings with foreign entities. If true, Hunter Biden’s actions could call into question the integrity and impartiality of U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine.
Potential Implications
The implications of these reports are far-reaching and multifaceted.
U.S.-Ukraine Relations
The U.S.-Ukraine relationship could be negatively affected if it is perceived that American foreign policy decisions were influenced by Hunter Biden’s business dealings. This could damage the trust and confidence between the two countries, potentially impacting ongoing diplomatic efforts and security cooperation.
The Biden Family
The Biden family’s reputation could suffer if it is determined that Hunter Biden’s business dealings were ethically questionable or involved improper influence. This could impact the political careers of other family members, such as President Joe Biden himself.
American Democracy
The controversy also raises important questions about transparency, accountability, and the ethical boundaries of public officials’ business dealings. Maintaining the trust of the American people requires that elected officials uphold high standards of conduct and avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially when it comes to foreign entanglements.
Suggestions for Further Investigation
To fully understand the extent and implications of Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Burisma, a thorough review of relevant documents is necessary. Interviews with key witnesses, such as Hunter Biden himself and other individuals involved in the transactions, would also provide valuable insight into the motivations and actions of all parties involved. An assessment of the motivations and actions of the Ukrainian government officials who may have been involved is also critical to understanding the full scope of this controversy.
