Hunter's Pardon Vindicates Trump

Trump was impeached for seeking to investigate the crimes for which Joe Biden has now pardoned his son.

Contrary to media narratives, the pardoning of Hunter Biden by his father, Joe Biden, is one of the least surprising events of the year. From the moment a jury convicted Hunter of various gun-related offenses, along with his own guilty plea to tax crimes in June, respectively September, it became evident to anyone with a functioning brain that Joe Biden would intervene to prevent his son from serving time in jail.

What is also not surprising is the timing of the pardon. While some commentators feign ignorance regarding why it should have occurred now, rather than on Biden’s final day in office, the fact that Hunter was facing sentencing on December 12 necessitated preemption by Joe Biden.

However, what may be somewhat surprising is that the pardon encompasses more than just an implied acknowledgment of the fact that Hunter did in fact engage in corrupt practices in Ukraine. To put it more bluntly: Joe Biden has just pardoned his son for the very crimes that Trump sought to investigate, which ultimately resulted in Trump's impeachment.

In fact, the most notable aspect of the pardon is the timeframe it encompasses. The offenses for which Hunter was convicted occurred in 2018. The official narrative regarding events prior to 2018 has consistently portrayed Hunter as just an ordinary businessman who did nothing wrong.

So why, then, is the pardon retroactively dated to begin on January 1, 2014? That was eleven years ago, an excessively long period for which all crimes and potential crimes have now been forgiven. This timing is not coincidental. Most, if not all, of the Ukraine corruption involving the Biden family began in 2014 and largely concluded by the time Joe Biden left the vice presidency in January 2017. In other words, the extended timeframe covered by the pardon, beyond what Hunter has already been convicted of, conveniently coincides with the exact period during which the Bidens were profiting from their Ukraine schemes.

Let’s take a look at the timeline in more detail: It was around January 2014, precisely when the pardon begins, that then-Vice President Joe Biden became the point man for Ukraine. He immediately embarked on a path of geopolitical destruction that resulted in the ousting of Ukraine’s democratically elected leader, Viktor Yanukovych, at the behest of the United States government. This is not merely speculation; the events are documented in a leaked conversation between Obama administration official Victoria Nuland and the then-ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discuss the planned coup d'état and the individuals they have selected to assume control of Ukraine once Yanukovych is removed. The most significant part of the conversation is where Nuland acknowledges that the scheme required Biden’s approval and confirms that Biden had, in fact, given his consent.

It is difficult to believe, even now, eleven years later, that this really happened. But it did. It’s on tape. As an aside, to illustrate once again the corruption of the media, when the tape was released, the media’s sole attention was directed toward the fact that Nuland had said “F*ck the EU,” rather than the fact that the United States government had just orchestrated a coup d'état.

Unfortunately, everything that has transpired in Ukraine since then—from Biden's corruption to the Donbas war, to Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump and elect Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, the ongoing war in Ukraine—all of these events can be traced back directly to Joe Biden’s decision in early February 2014 to greenlight a coup d'état.

It did not take long for Hunter to arrive on the scene. Just a few weeks after the Biden-led coup and the installation of Biden’s preferred puppets as Ukraine’s new leaders—those same individuals mentioned in Nuland’s phone call—Hunter secured a lucrative position with the corrupt Ukrainian energy conglomerate, Burisma. Despite having no experience in the energy sector and never having visited Ukraine, Hunter accepted this role.

The Biden family's involvement with Burisma began on April 16, 2014, when Joe Biden met at the White House with Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, who served as their conduit to Burisma. The specifics of their discussion during that meeting remain unclear. However, on April 21, 2014, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine to offer political support and U.S. taxpayer funding to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the new leader who had been installed at the behest of Biden and Victoria Nuland.

During Biden's visit to Ukraine, Hunter joined the board of Burisma. However, for unspecified reasons, Burisma did not announce Hunter's appointment until May 12, 2014.

It is often suggested that the Bidens received money for doing nothing. However, the reality is quite different. Both Hunter and, later, Joe Biden had to actively protect Burisma. That is what the Bidens were being paid for.

Initially, Hunter was appointed as head of Burisma’s legal unit. Soon, there was a first big problem. The prosecutors' office in the United Kingdom launched an investigation, which led to the freezing of $23.5 million in assets belonging to Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. We later found out, from an email from State Department official George Kent, that after Burisma paid a $7 million bribe in December 2014—while Hunter was head of Burisma’s legal unit—the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, Vitaly Yarema, suddenly sent a letter to United Kingdom authorities stating that “there was no active case open on Zlochevsky.” The frozen assets were then released to Zlochevsky. Kent, who testified at President Trump’s 2020 impeachment, somehow forgot to mention the bribe during the impeachment hearings. It wasn’t until his email was uncovered years later that we finally found out what had happened.

Yarema resigned on February 9, 2015, shortly after the bribe was paid. Yarema’s replacement, Victor Shokin, a former prosecutor brought out of retirement to try and clean up the mess left behind, was appointed on February 10.

It is important to reiterate that it was not Viktor Shokin who received the bribe, but rather his predecessor. Democrats, such as Dan Goldman, who served as the lead impeachment attorney against President Trump, often deliberately misrepresent the facts by claiming that Shokin accepted the bribe, which supposedly prompted Biden to have him fired. In reality, the situation is quite the opposite. It was Yarema who took the bribe from Burisma while Hunter was head of the legal unit. It was Shokin who decided to investigate the corruption of his predecessor and Burisma.

Another point that is misrepresented by people like Goldman, and the legacy media, is Shokin’s standing. Rather than being criticized, Shokin’s appointment was initially welcomed by U.S. officials. Nuland personally wrote Shokin in June 2015, telling him that "[w]e have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government”. Nuland also said that ongoing reform from Shokin demonstrated his ability to “investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner.”

Shokin’s credibility was highlighted again in a September 2015 speech from Ambassador Pyatt when he stated that “[w]e want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin” because Shokin was “leading the fight against corruption” in Ukraine. Pyatt also stated that the $23 million in frozen Burisma assets—which were returned to Burisma owner Zlochevsky through the actions of Shokin’s predecessor—were “illicit” and “belonged to the Ukrainian people.”

Pyatt later followed his speech up with an October 2015 tweet about looking forward to tackling corruption in Ukraine together with Shokin.

However, the accolades and support for Shokin from U.S. officials shifted dramatically on November 2, 2015, when Hunter Biden received an email from Vadym Pozharskyi, the head of Burisma’s board. Pozharskyi demanded that Hunter produce specific “deliverables,” stating that the “ultimate purpose” was to “close down any cases or pursuits” against Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, in Ukraine. Pozharskyi had been in Washington, D.C., that week, and the email served to memorialize what he presumably had already communicated to Hunter in person.

It is unclear whether Pozharskyi met Joe Biden on that occasion. However, it is confirmed that he met with Biden—who was the sitting vice president at the time—earlier that year. It was this revelation that sparked the Hunter Biden laptop saga. In other words, the saga did not originate from any salacious laptop content, as was later claimed, but rather from the straightforward fact that Joe Biden was significantly involved in Hunter’s business dealings and had lied about that involvement.

Pozharskyi's target was Shokin, who had reopened the investigation into Zlochevsky that had been closed by his predecessor. In fact, Shokin had successfully obtained an order from Ukrainian courts to seize Zlochevsky's assets, which were ultimately confiscated by Ukrainian authorities on February 2, 2016. This fact too is frequently misrepresented by legacy media, which claims that Biden fired Shokin for failing to investigate Burisma. In reality, the exact opposite is true.

Immediately after receiving Pozharskyi's email regarding deliverables, Hunter reached out to Amos Hochstein, who served as Obama’s Special Envoy and Coordinator of International Energy Affairs. Four days later, on November 6, 2015, Hunter met Hochstein in person. Hochstein later informed Congressional investigators that Hunter “wanted to know my views on Burisma and Zlochevsky.”

Nuland later told those same congressional investigators that Hochstein personally expressed his concerns regarding Hunter's involvement with Burisma to Joe Biden during a flight to Ukraine on December 7, 2015.

Two weeks before Joe Biden's trip to Ukraine, and less than three weeks after Hunter was ordered by Pozharskyi to have the cases against Zlochevsky shut down, Joe Biden explicitly demanded the removal of Shokin for the first time on November 22, 2015.

Shokin was ultimately fired in March 2016, but only after Joe Biden leveraged U.S. taxpayer loan guarantees to get him removed. Biden famously bragged about this incident at a Council on Foreign Relations conference that was held on January 23, 2018.

However, getting Shokin fired was only half the task. Hunter needed to ensure that the investigations were effectively shut down, which required replacing Shokin with someone who would facilitate that outcome. Unsurprisingly, immediately after Shokin's dismissal, his interim successor, Yuriy Sevruk, was approached by Blue Star Strategies, a Washington D.C.-based political consultancy firm led by Bill Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff, Karen Tramontano. At Hunter’s urging, Burisma had engaged Blue Star in November 2015, ostensibly to assist Hunter in closing the cases against Zlochevsky.

On the same day that Shokin's firing was announced, March 29, 2016, John Buretta, a New York-based attorney and former senior official in the Obama Department of Justice who had been hired by Blue Star, made an unsuccessful attempt to contact Sevruk. Blue Star's efforts to reach Sevruk continued with the assignment of a staff member at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, Andrii Telizhenko, to arrange a meeting with Sevruk. That meeting took place in Ukraine just a week later, on April 6. Both Buretta and Tramontano personally traveled to Ukraine to speak with the interim prosecutor.

Shortly after this meeting, Sevruk was replaced by Yuriy Lutsenko as Ukraine’s new prosecutor general. Perhaps Sevruk did not agree to shut down the cases. Joe Biden would later claim that Lutsenko was “solid”.

Buretta then met Lutsenko in person several times and conveyed that the investigations into Burisma and its owner, Zlochevsky, needed to be shut down.

Following these events, the investigations into Burisma and Zlochevsky were wound down over the next few months. In mid-January 2017, just before Biden’s term as vice president ended, Burisma announced that all legal proceedings against the company and Zlochevsky had been closed.

It required the bribery of one Ukrainian prosecutor, the dismissal of his successor, Shokin, urgent meetings with an interim prosecutor, and intense pressure on a fourth replacement prosecutor. Ultimately, however, Hunter's efforts succeeded in achieving what had been demanded of him: all cases against Burisma were closed just in time before Joe Biden left office.

As we stated at the outset, the events initiated by Joe Biden in early 2014 have contributed to the current geopolitical turmoil. This includes Trump's first impeachment, which, had it not occurred, might have enabled him to secure re-election in 2020 and potentially avert the war in Ukraine. If Kent's email regarding Burisma's bribery of officials, while Hunter Biden was serving as head of their legal department, had not been concealed, Trump's desire to investigate Biden corruption in Ukraine—an aspiration that directly led to his impeachment—would have been vindicated much earlier. It is, of course, ironic that this vindication has now manifested in the form of a pardon for Hunter Biden, which encompasses all the misdeeds that Trump sought to have investigated.

But Hunter’s pardon should not signify the conclusion of this chapter. Huge damage has been inflicted—on Trump, on the country, and, of course, on Ukraine itself. While it is unlikely that individuals will face imprisonment, especially since we have yet to see Biden’s complete list of pardons, which he will undoubtedly release on his final day in office, it is imperative that we ensure the history of Biden's corruption and its direct connection to global events is accurately documented for future generations.