Former President Barack Obama’s administration ignored “glaring warning signs” when then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company owned by a corrupt oligarch, according to a report released on Wednesday.
Hunter Biden’s position with the Burisma natural-gas firm — which paid him “as much as $50,000 per month” — “created an immediate potential conflict of interest” because his dad, now President Trump’s Democratic opponent in the Nov. 3 election, was involved in US policy toward Ukraine, the report says.
The report, released by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also says the younger Biden’s job “was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.”
“Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board negatively impacted the efforts of dedicated career service individuals who were fighting to push for anti-corruption measures in Ukraine,” the report says.
Hunter Biden also received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine.
Baturina is referenced in the report which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014.
“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.
The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.
The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.
About the Author
“was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.” – what kind of word smithing is this? Did it or did it not interfere in policy? I can say that “the rain did interfere in my driving to the store”, but it does not mean I did not get to the store. Was policy to Ukraine affected by this or not? Seems like a political hit job to me.