Thread by @ClimateAudit

1/ in Sept 2015, then Ambassador Pyatt made forceful speech in Odessa excoriating failure of Prosecutor General of Ukraine to prosecute corruption
justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…

2/ Harpers had then recently reported
harpers.org/blog/2015/08/u… how Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoisky had embezzled $1.8 billion of IMF loans into offshore companies. But Pyatt made no mention of this scandal nor do other StateDept officials appear to have been concerned about it

3/ instead, Pyatt's chosen example of corruption was the failure of Shokin's predecessor in the case of a $23 million bank account of Burisma's Zlochevsky, which had been frozen in UK, but later released by UK authorities.

4/ within six months of Pyatt's speech, prosecutor Shokin was dismissed. Leading to his dismissal was pressure by US government and NGOs, plus, of course, Biden's now notorious threat which may or may not have had something to do with Hunter's employment by Burisma.

5/ prior to his dismissal, Shokin had obtained a court order seizing Zlochevsky's assets (Feb 2, 2016). Within days of this seizure, Burisma retained high-powered Democrat fixers: Karen Tramontano, Sally Painter (acquaintances of Hunter) and lawyer John Burretta (from Obama DOJ)

6/ the Democrat fixers immediately contacted State Dept on behalf of Zlochevsky/Burisma and, within hours of Shokin's dismissal, traveled to Ukraine to meet with his replacement.

7/ shortly (only days) before the end of Obama admin in Jan 2017, the Democrat fixers arranged for the settlement of all charges against Burisma and Zlochevsky for payment of relatively nominal agreed back taxes. All criminal charges were settled.

8/ since US Ambassador to Ukraine had objected so strenuously to Ukraine's apparent failure to vigorously pursue the UK case against Zlochevsky/Burisma, one would have thought that Iovanovitch, Pyatt's successor, and the State Dept, would have been outraged at Burisma getting off

9/ the settlement of all cases by the Democrat fixers was much more far-reaching than the failed UK case which had outraged Pyatt. Did Iovanovitch or State Dept vigorously express outrage? Not to my knowledge.

10/ now let's put the Trump call into this context. The US Ambassador and US State Dept had originally called on Ukraine to vigorously investigate Zlochevsky and Burisma and were frustrated at Ukraine's inaction. So did Trump. Shouldn't Pyatt and Iovanovitch be pleased at this?

11/ the Republican questioning of the various Ukraine diplomats manages to miss this essential narrative: Iovanovitch, for example (or Vindman) should be asked about Pyatt's speech on Zlochevsky/Burisma and whether she endorsed Pyatt's position.

12/ then they should skip fast forward to the settlement of all Burisma charges by the Democrat fixers and ask Iovanovitch (Taylor etc) whether this settlement fulfilled Pyatt's demands for vigorous prosecution.

13/ then ask them which is more consistent with Pyatt's demands of Sep 2015: Trump's request for vigorous prosecution of corruption or the settlement with Burisma in the waning days of Obama admin.

14/ they should also all be asked whether they spoke out against reported embezzlement of $1.8 billion by Kolomoisky and, if not, why not. Since Kolomoisky is a patron of new President Zelensky, any answers will be intriguing

15/ returning to original speech by Ambassador Pyatt, Pyatt had demanded that "misconduct" by officials who had "subverted" the prosecution of Burisma be "investigated". Subsequent to Pyatt's speech, the "subversion" was carried to unprecedented levels by settling all charges.

16/ yet the investigation demanded by Pyatt and US officials was never carried out. Isn't it needed now more than ever? Why aren't Pyatt and other officials endorsing Trump's demand for investigation of the Burisma affair?