COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Did Biden get the prosecutor fired to protect Burisma?

Viktor Shokin, the billion-dollar loan guarantee and what the Burisma cases looked like

← Interactive guide and chronology · The Biden Family hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

What Biden did, and why the West wanted Shokin gone

The loan guarantee and the policy behind it.

Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018 that he had told Ukraine’s leaders in Kyiv, “You’re not getting the billion,” and given them six hours: “I said, I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.” [1]

That demand was U.S. policy, and not only Biden’s. In September 2015 the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, said in a public speech that officials in the prosecutor general’s office had undermined a British case that froze $23 million belonging to Zlochevsky, by sending letters saying no case existed. The White House briefed reporters in December 2015 that the office needed reform. In February 2016 the IMF warned Ukraine about corruption, Shokin’s own deputy Vitaliy Kasko resigned calling the office “a hotbed of corruption,” and eight senators, including Republicans Rob Portman, Ron Johnson and Mark Kirk, wrote to Poroshenko urging reform of the prosecutor’s office. [2][3][4][5][6]

The Rada removed Shokin on 29 March 2016. The EU’s envoy called it “an opportunity to make a fresh start.” [6][7]

What we can’t tell you. Biden’s 2018 telling compresses events; the loan guarantee was signed after Shokin’s successor was in place.

The sources

  1. Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with former Vice President Joe Biden, January 23, 2018 ↗

    Original public discussion in which Biden describes conditioning a loan guarantee on the prosecutor’s removal. His account establishes his stated action, not the motive asserted by later critics.

  2. U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, remarks at the Odesa Financial Forum, 24 September 2015 (Just Security copy) ↗

    The U.S. ambassador publicly accuses officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office of undermining a British case that had frozen $23 million of Mykola Zlochevsky’s assets.

  3. Obama White House background briefing on Ukraine, December 2, 2015 ↗

    Contemporaneous official policy explanation; anonymous senior officials stated prosecution reform was an administration objective before the 2019 controversy.

  4. IMF managing director statement on Ukraine, February 10, 2016 ↗

    Contemporaneous warning about stalled governance and anticorruption reform. The URL includes an older directory date; the statement itself is dated February 10, 2016. It does not itself specifically order Shokin’s dismissal.

  5. Senate Ukraine Caucus, 12 February 2016: letter to President Poroshenko urging prosecutor-general reform (archived Portman press release) ↗

    Senators of both parties, including Republicans Rob Portman, Ron Johnson and Mark Kirk, press Ukraine to reform the Prosecutor General’s Office a month before Shokin is removed.

  6. House Oversight Democrats: fact sheet on the firing of Viktor Shokin ↗

    A partisan compilation, but it quotes on-record statements by the IMF, the EU envoy, Ukrainian deputy prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko and others.

  7. Kyiv Post, 29 March 2016: Parliament sacks Prosecutor General Shokin ↗

    Contemporary report of the Rada vote.

Was Shokin about to go after Burisma?

Shokin’s claim against the case record.

In a September 2019 statement prepared for the extradition case of the Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash in Austria, Shokin said he was dismissed because he was actively investigating Burisma and that the U.S. had demanded it.“The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma,” he wrote. [1]

The Ukrainian record points the other way. Vitaliy Kasko, Shokin’s deputy, told Bloomberg the Burisma case “was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” and that there was “no pressure from anyone from the United States” to close it. The Anti-Corruption Action Center said Shokin himself “dumped” the Burisma case; the British request for help that he ignored came before Hunter joined the board. [2]

Devon Archer testified that he was told by Burisma’s Washington consultants that Shokin was “under control” and that his firing was bad for the company, though he said he could not verify it. In 2020 Shokin persuaded a Kyiv court to order police to investigate Biden; police closed the case that September for lack of a crime, and a court rejected his appeal in February 2021. [3][4][5]

What we can’t tell you. Burisma faced several investigations in several countries over the years; “dormant” describes the Ukrainian case in 2015, not every inquiry ever opened.

The sources

  1. Viktor Shokin, witness statement of 4 September 2019 for Dmytro Firtash’s lawyers (scan published by FactCheck.org) ↗

    Shokin’s own account of his dismissal, prepared for Firtash’s extradition litigation in Austria.

  2. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 2019: Why was Ukraine’s top prosecutor fired? Viktor Shokin’s dismissal explained ↗

    Lays out both sides, with Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists on the state of the Burisma cases.

  3. Devon Archer interview, July 31, 2023 ↗

    Primary transcript, especially pages 24–36, 101–108 and 124–126. Archer describes his recollections and understanding; distinguish what he heard directly from what he inferred.

  4. National Police of Ukraine, November 2020: police lawfully closed an investigation involving Joe Biden ↗

    The ministry statement that a case opened on Shokin’s complaint was closed for lack of a crime.

  5. NBC News, November 2020: Ukraine police close Biden probe initiated by ousted prosecutor ↗

    News account of the closure.

  6. Senate Republican staff report: Hunter Biden, Burisma and corruption, September 2020 ↗

    Republican majority report compiling documents and testimony; its characterizations are investigators’ conclusions, not criminal judgments. This guide uses its documented ethics warnings without adopting every allegation.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 126 rated claims ↗

← The Biden Family hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesBiden shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesBiden.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.