Senator Confronts Witness on Biden-Burisma Connection: Quotes Biden’s 2018 CFR Boast About Firing the Prosecutor Investigating Company Paying His Son $1 Million a Year

On 12/3/2022, a senator confronted a witness during a congressional hearing about the Burisma-Biden connection by quoting then-Vice President Biden’s own 2018 Council on Foreign Relations speech. The witness had denied that Biden’s 2016 actions in Ukraine “benefited the corrupt oligarch who was paying his son a million dollars a year.” The senator then read Biden’s own words from January 23, 2018, in which Biden proudly recounted threatening to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee from Ukraine unless the country fired the prosecutor “that was investigating Burisma.” Biden’s own account included: “I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.” The video captured the central tension of the Hunter Biden Ukraine story — Biden himself had publicly admitted to exactly the kind of quid pro quo the witness was denying.

The Biden-Burisma Timeline

The exchange referenced a sequence of events that had been at the center of political controversy for years:

2014: Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, reportedly receiving approximately $1 million per year despite having no relevant expertise in Ukrainian energy markets.

2014-2016: Burisma was under investigation by Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin for alleged corruption and money laundering.

2016: As Vice President, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees from Ukraine unless the government fired Prosecutor Shokin.

The prosecutor was fired.

The investigation into Burisma was subsequently dropped.

This timeline created the appearance of a quid pro quo benefiting Biden’s son’s employer. The Biden administration’s explanation was that Shokin’s firing was supported by the U.S., European allies, and anti-corruption advocates because he was failing to pursue corruption investigations effectively — and that Biden’s threat was unrelated to Burisma.

”That Benefited the Corrupt Oligarch”

The witness’s position was that Biden’s actions hadn’t benefited the Ukrainian oligarchs paying Hunter Biden. “That benefited the corrupt oligarch who was paying his son a million dollars a year. He did not. He did not,” the witness said.

The repeated “He did not” suggested the witness was emphatically denying a specific claim. The claim was that Biden’s Ukraine actions had benefited Hunter’s employer.

But this denial was difficult to sustain given public facts. The prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired after Biden’s threat. The Burisma investigation was subsequently closed. Hunter Biden continued receiving approximately $1 million per year from Burisma. Whether these events constituted a “benefit” from Biden’s intervention was contested, but the sequence of events was undisputed.

Biden’s Own Words

The senator then deployed the most devastating possible evidence — Biden’s own words from 2018. “Someone who disagrees with you, Mr. Kent, is Joe Biden. And I want to read from what he said on January 23, 2018 at the Council of Foreign Relations,” the senator said.

The Council on Foreign Relations speech was a well-documented public event where Biden had proudly recounted his Ukraine intervention. At the time (2018), Biden was a former vice president with presidential ambitions, and he had been describing his Ukraine work as an example of his foreign policy effectiveness. He had no reason to anticipate that his account would later be used as evidence of potential impropriety.

The senator’s citation of the CFR speech was a trap. Biden couldn’t disavow his own recorded words. The speech had been video recorded, transcribed, and publicly available for years. Whatever the Biden administration said about the Burisma connection, Biden’s own prior words provided the most direct evidence of his involvement and actions.

”I Went Over, I Guess, the 12th, 13th Time to Kiev”

The senator read Biden’s own account. “This is Joe Biden speaking. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee,” the senator quoted.

The frequency of Biden’s Ukraine visits — “the 12th, 13th time” — was itself notable. Biden was deeply engaged with Ukrainian affairs during his time as Vice President, with the Obama administration treating him as the lead official on Ukraine policy. This was the context in which Hunter Biden had joined the Burisma board — his father was the U.S. government’s primary point of contact with the Ukrainian government.

The “billion dollar loan guarantee” was the leverage Biden had used. The U.S. had pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine, contingent on reforms the U.S. wanted to see. Biden’s authority was that he could either deliver or withhold that commitment.

”I’d Gotten a Commitment That They Would Take Action Against the State Prosecutor”

The senator continued reading. “And I’d gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma. And they didn’t,” the quotation continued.

The critical phrase here was “the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma.” Biden, in his own words, specifically identified the prosecutor as someone who was investigating Burisma — Hunter’s employer. This wasn’t a characterization imposed by critics; it was Biden’s own description of the situation.

“And they didn’t” — Biden continued. The Ukrainian leadership hadn’t followed through on their commitment to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma. This is what triggered Biden’s escalation.

”You’re Not Getting the Billion Dollars”

The senator then read Biden’s description of his ultimatum. “So Biden continues. I said, no, I’m not going to — we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said, I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I’m going to be leaving here. And I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said, I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired,” the senator quoted.

This was the critical passage. Biden had:

1. Explicitly linked the loan guarantees to firing a specific prosecutor — the one investigating his son’s employer
2. Given a specific deadline — six hours
3. Gloated about the outcome — “son of a bitch, he got fired”

This was not an ambiguous situation that critics were interpreting unfairly. This was Biden himself proudly describing a classic quid pro quo: “do this or you don’t get the money.” And the specific “this” was firing someone who was investigating his son’s employer.

The Defense: Systemic Corruption

The Biden administration’s defense of the Shokin firing had always been that Shokin was a bad prosecutor. The U.S. State Department, European allies, and anti-corruption organizations had all criticized Shokin’s performance. The argument was that Biden’s pressure to fire Shokin was part of broader anti-corruption efforts that coincidentally also affected Burisma.

This defense had merit as far as it went. Shokin was indeed widely criticized for failing to pursue corruption effectively. Many observers believed his removal was a net positive for Ukrainian governance.

But the defense didn’t fully address the appearance problem. Even if Shokin’s removal was independently justified, Biden personally intervening in a foreign government’s prosecutorial decisions — while his son was being paid by a company the prosecutor was investigating — created serious conflict-of-interest concerns. The fact that Biden himself proudly recounted the intervention years later suggested he didn’t see the conflict.

”Well, Son of a Bitch. He Got Fired”

The “son of a bitch” language was particularly damaging because it captured Biden’s personal pride in the outcome. This wasn’t a reluctant diplomat executing difficult policy; this was an official celebrating the successful application of leverage. Biden’s delight at the prosecutor’s firing — “son of a bitch, he got fired” — came from someone who had personally prevailed in a confrontation, not someone who had reluctantly participated in a multilateral anti-corruption effort.

The tone revealed that for Biden, this was a personal victory worth boasting about, not a policy implementation worth describing professionally. The emotional investment in the outcome suggested the prosecutor’s removal was important to Biden specifically, not just important as a matter of U.S. foreign policy.

Key Takeaways

• A senator confronted a witness denying that Biden’s Ukraine actions benefited the “corrupt oligarch” paying Hunter Biden $1 million per year.
• The senator read Biden’s own January 2018 Council on Foreign Relations speech as evidence.
• Biden had proudly recounted threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor “that was investigating Burisma.”
• Biden gave a six-hour deadline and celebrated the outcome: “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
• Biden’s own account established the direct connection between his intervention and the prosecutor’s firing that benefited his son’s employer.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

• That benefited the corrupt oligarch who was paying his son a million dollars a year. He did not.
• Someone who disagrees with you, Mr. Kent, is Joe Biden.
• I’d gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma.
• I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.
• Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.
• I said, no, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars.

Full transcript: 219 words transcribed via Whisper AI.