Farkas: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill … ‘Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration."
“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, [they] would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. … That’s why you have the leaking.”
Note that Farkas said “how we knew,” not just “what we knew.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On July 23, 2023, Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes Second Edition" justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
Eisen: This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.
Solomon went to WH on evening of Jan 19, 2021 where he reviewed docs.
Plan was to fully disseminate to public on morning of the 20th.
But Solomon received a call late that night from someone w/in WH asking for their return for "additional redactions."
Here's what happened next
"On his initiative and without the President’s knowledge or consent, one of the President’s subordinates decided that redactions consistent with the standards of the Privacy Act should be applied to the binder before it was publicly released, the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion notwithstanding."
We know from an email sent by George Kent, deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, that a $7mm bribe was paid to the office of Ukrainian chief prosecutor Vitaly Yarema some time in latter part of 2014.
Yarema's office issued a Dec 25, 2014 letter to the UK Courts - who had been investigating Zlochevsky - stating there was no longer an active Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky.
This letter forced the UK Court to drop case.
Yarema and his staff were fired ~one month later.
Yarema's replacement was Viktor Shokin - who reopened the Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky & Burisma.
At the time of the bribe, Hunter was — per Burisma — in charge of Burisma’s legal affairs. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…
Two days after Joe Biden's newly disclosed Dec 4, 2015 conference call w/Hunter & Burisma owner Zlochevsky, Biden's staff crafted answers to potential questions Joe might get re: Hunter's involvement w/Burisma
One of those questions:
Do you think Zlochevsky is corrupt?
Biden's defenders like @RepDanGoldman have claimed Joe Biden didn't know these individuals - or anything about them.
But Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine wrote to Biden's staff on Dec 6, 2015, "I assume all have the DoJ background on Zlochevsky."
It's beyond any doubt that Joe Biden knew exactly who Zlochevsky was - and the significance of participating in a conference call w/Zlochevsky.
Biden's staff was obviously worried - and it's unlikely they even knew of the conference call w/Zlochevsky less than two days prior.
Here, Kent describes UK Investigation - and how it ended in late Dec 2014 because Yarema told UK Courts "there was no active case open on Zlochevsky"
Kent also mentions the $7mm bribe paid to Yarema's office.
Yarema resigned shortly after on Feb 9, 2015. Shokin replaced him.
There's another big problem as well. Goldman makes crazy claim that Shokin was an asset to Burisma - therefore Joe Biden's actions to fire Shokin ran counter to Burisma's interests:
"as Goldman articulated it...Shokin’s ouster put Burisma and Zlochevsky at more risk, not less."
2) Most are familiar w/sequence of events leading to the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Víctor Shokin - as the direct result of political and financial pressure from then-VP Joe Biden.
This thread, which focuses on Shokin timeline, is a good refresher: