Ukrainian Official Who Attended Jan 2016 White House Meeting on Biden/Burisma Blows Up Schiff's Narrative

 

This week, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham obtained several emails from the State Department regarding a previously unknown White House meeting held in January 2016. After watching Ingraham’s presentation of the story, Ukrainian Embassy official Andrii Telizhenko, who had attended the meeting, issued an exclusive statement and provided several documents which she presented to her audience on Friday night.

On May 1, 2019, New York Times reporter Ken Vogel emailed the State Department to confirm that (State Dept. official) Elizabeth Zentos had attended the January 2016 White House meeting about “Burisma Holdings and concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.” Vogel wrote that the attendees included “Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials as well as Eric Ciaramella from the NSC.” By now, everyone who has read my posts knows that Ciaramella is alleged to be the whistleblower who sparked the current impeachment trial of President Trump.

Telizhenko attended the secret January 19, 2016 meeting and his statement began: “I was told to work and cooperate with Mrs. Chalupa, a DNC operative, by Ambassador Chaliy…She asked for me to help her get dirt on Presidential candidate Donald Trump…I never coordinated any work with her or the DNC because…I did not support the unethical orders to work and assist one party.”

He also provided a copy of the White House invitation and a “schedule of the meeting listing two names, one associated with the whistleblower whose name we blocked out, and Elizabeth Zentos, both from Obama’s NSC (National Security Council).”

Ingraham continued, “Telizhenko said that while the meeting was touted as a quote prosecutor’s training program (Ingraham clears throat), much of the conversation revolved around the Bidens and Burisma and it wasn’t the Ukrainians who brought up the Bidens and Burisma.”

“Telizhenko wrote: The representatives of the DOJ, U.S. Embassy in Kiev and NSC staff raised the question of the Burisma investigation, most of NSC staff were people from Biden’s team.”

The whistleblower is not a whistleblower.

Ingraham asked investigative journalist Sarah Carter how Schiff can claim the Bidens have no relevance to this [the impeachment].

Carter replies:

They can’t. This is the point and this is the reason why Adam Schiff does not want to call the whistleblower and this is the reason why he doesn’t want anymore information coming out because what we know now is those connections were so deep inside the State Department. And by the way, it’s not only Ukraine. You hear this coming from other countries with the Obama Administration…I’ll give you an example in Guatemala, pressure from the State Department to do things their way or they’ll withhold aid. This is nothing new. I think right now we’re on the cusp of something big. This is an explosive report Laura. This is huge and absolutely has to be investigated. But who is going to investigate it? The DOJ? The Senate Judiciary [Committee]?

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York weighed in:

This could be the nexus between the whistleblower and the Biden/Burisma story where you have concerns in the Obama White House about Hunter Biden’s connections in the Ukraine. His father is obviously the Vice President and now we have, we know, the person who is alleged to be the whistleblower was involved with that…Republicans do not want to call witnesses, but if they had to have a witness, it seems the whistleblower is the one. Because I do not believe it is possible to call for the removal of the President of the United States and say ‘some of the evidence has to stay secret.’

Laura stresses the point that “the whistleblower’s name is on every White House log from that meeting meaning he checked everyone in from the anti-corruption prosecutor in the Ukraine. Looks like they were discussing what to do about the Bidens and what to do about the corruption in Burisma. That was the focus and it was billed as something else so as not to raise eyebrows.”

Investigative journalist Lee Smith responded, “Another key point you have in the statement from Mr. Telizhenko is that they’re looking for information on candidate Donald Trump. At that point, it starts to cut right to the heart of the impeachment issue here if their complaint is that the President was looking for information on Biden and what we’re looking at (inaudible) and its source is they were collecting dirt on candidate Trump in 2016.”

Ingraham points out that in 2016, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) formally requested documents from this meeting which are still outstanding. Turning to York, she says, “You know that every person at that meeting knows a lot about how this started and how the concern about the conflict arose.”

York says, “I’ll tell you interest in the Hunter Biden story among Republican senators has just gone through the roof in the last 24 hours because they believe Democrats, yesterday, just completely opened the door to it by being so defensive about it. They want to know more now.

Ingraham plays a clip of Schiff saying, “Now you’ll hear the further defense that Biden is corrupt, that Joe Biden is corrupt, that Hunter Biden is corrupt. If they couldn’t get Ukraine to smear the Bidens, they want to use this trial to do it instead.”

The panel is astounded. Sarah Carter says, “Why would you go there? Because this is where we’re going to go. And we’re gonna expose this corruption…And even more importantly, all of these documents Laura that you’ve been able to expose actually show that Joe Biden absolutely knew everything that was going on before he made those demands [to Ukraine President Poroshenko to fire Victor Shokin, the prosecutor general who was about to question his son].

Smith notes that, “The American public has now been exposed to four days of Schiffism as Adam Schiff has been holding forth and defending all sorts of things. Of course, that’s what he’s been doing for three years obscuring all sorts of abuses, fomenting conspiracy theories.”

“The Democrats have been pretty consistent about trying to tar any conversation about the Bidens as a conspiracy theory,” said Ingraham.

York said that was what White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s point was. “Running for President conferred immunity on Biden and you couldn’t talk about this. And the bigger thing to remember about the impeachment right now is Republicsns want to get this over with.”

The Democrats have given the Trump defense team an open line of attack. In December 2015, The New York Times was sufficiently interested in Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with Burisma that they published a story about it. In January 2016, Obama Administration officials were concerned enough about it to summon nine Ukrainian government officials and prosecutors to a White House meeting. They even tried to hide the real purpose of the meeting by calling it a “Prosecutor’s Training Program.” Then two months later, Joe Biden himself, threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid unless the Ukrainian President fired the prosecutor.

So, the question becomes why did House Democrats impeach President Trump for asking questions about it? The answer is they can’t. It was just a pretext for impeaching the President.

And the next is, how can a man who was so obviously Joe Biden’s ally, who was so clearly doing Joe Biden’s bidding, who traveled to Ukraine with him and was invited to at least one very prestigious event by Biden, a highly partisan Democrat who left the White House in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media, allowed to lodge an anonymous complaint against President Trump?

Imagine the House Democrats’ case against President Trump as a rock. A mason positions a chisel in just the right place on that rock, then lifts his heavy mallet to strike a mighty blow. The rock cracks into several pieces which lie among the shards from the stone’s core. This week’s revelation that the Obama Administration had been apprehensive about the Biden/Burisma connection and had acted to address it has the same effect. And the news that Eric Ciaramella was so involved is equivalent to a second blow to the chisel. If Ciaramella is indeed the individual who filed the whistleblower complaint, and it is essential that we find that out, then this farce is over.

The video can be viewed here.

Elizabeth Vaughn
Writer at RedState
MBA, former financial consultant, options trader
Mom of three grown children, grandmother
Email Elizabeth at [email protected]

 
Read more by Elizabeth Vaughn