When the Associated Press reported on a May 7 meeting during which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky strategized with associates about how in protect his impending presidency from an alleged pressure campaign from Rudy Giuliani, one conclusion was obvious: Congress ought to call upon the only American in the room, Amos Hochstein, to testify as a part of their impeachment investigation.
Further corroborating the AP piece is a new report from NBC News, which claims that Hochstein relayed Zelensky’s concern that Giuliani would try and coerce him to get involved in the 2020 election to Fiona Hill, then the White House’s top Europe official. NBC then claims that Hill then told since-ousted National Security Adviser John Bolton, ringing alarm bells in the White House.
As I speculated last week, it’s possible that Zelensky, who took office on May 20, was simply perturbed in the weeks prior to his inauguration because of Rudy Giuliani’s tweets about Ukraine or the president’s appearance on Sean Hannity. But if Giuliani’s associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were, in fact, directing the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens with the sole intention of affecting the outcome of the 2020 election with Trump’s endorsement or knowledge, that’s impeachable.
But that’s a big if, and it’s one that the NBC News report further emphasizes the importance of bringing in Hochstein to testify.
So perhaps the even more interesting question is the follow-up: Why hasn’t Congress gotten Hochstein, who’s based in the capital, to testify? His resume may point to the reason why.
An expert on international energy affairs, Hochstein served under Obama’s State Department and accompanied Vice President Joe Biden “in almost every single meeting” that he had with Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko. In December of 2017, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine appointed Hochstein, who also currently serves as the Senior Vice President of Marketing at American energy company Tellurian Inc., to the six-person supervisory board of Naftogaz. Unlike the role of Hunter Biden — we’ll get to that in a moment — on the board of Burisma Holdings, Hochstein’s appointment to the supervisory board was specifically enacted as an anti-corruption matter. A loan from the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development equivalent to over $100 million to Naftogaz was contingent on bringing the national oil and gas company to OECD standards. The supervisory board became a part of those anti-corruption measures, so Hochstein joined three other international appointees.
So given that Andriy Kobolyev, the head of Natfogaz, was in the May 7 meeting, it follows that Hochstein was there as a check. This is especially true when taken in tandem with the consideration that Energy Secretary Rick Perry reportedly pressured Zelensky to replace Hochstein on the board that very same month.
But Hochstein isn’t just at the center of the Trump-Ukraine business. He’s also at the center of the Biden business. As the State Department’s coordinator for international energy affairs, he was witness to most of Biden’s meetings with Poroshenko, and he claims that he never heard the 2020 front-runner discuss Burisma. Wouldn’t Democrats want him under oath to debunk or prove the quid pro quo theory once and for all? Or are they fearful that Hochstein could reveal unsavory information about Hunter, who, as he’d warned the VP, would be scrutinized while on the Burisma board?
Hochstein likely knows whether Zelensky’s fears about Giuliani and Trump, however eventually well-founded, were precipitated simply by the pair running their mouths online or if Giuliani’s associates — and thus Trump’s by proxy — were issuing specific demands with the sole intention of affecting Trump’s re-election. If the Democrats wish to pursue a serious impeachment investigation, the nation deserves to hear from Hochstein.
