Q. Okay. That was the end of it? Nobody—
A. Sir, you would have to ask people who worked in the Office of the Vice President during 2015.
Q. But after you expressed a concern of a perceived conflict of interest, at the least, the Vice President's engagement in the Ukraine didn't decrease, did it?
A. Correct, because the Vice President was promoting U.S. policy objectives in Ukraine.
Q. And Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma didn't cease, did it?
A. To the best of my knowledge, it didn't. And my concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest.[1]
Similarly, in her public testimony, Ambassador Yovanovitch agreed that concerns about Hunter Biden's presence on Burisma's board were legitimate. In an exchange with Rep. Ratcliffe, she testified:
Q. You understood from Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent's testimony, as it's been related to you that he testified a few days ago, do you understand that that arrangement, Hunter Biden's role on the Burisma board, caused him enough concern that, as he testified in his statement, that "in February of 2015, I raised my concern that Hunter Biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest." Then he went on to talk about the Vice President's responsibilities over the Ukraine – or over Ukraine – Ukrainian policy as one of those factors. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever—do you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. That it was a legitimate concern to raise?
A. I think that it could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest.
***
- ↑ Id.
83
