192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
BillRM
 
  4  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 01:44 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

revelette1 wrote:

Whistleblower Complaint

It's from the NYT, but I am sure it is available elsewhere if you do not have a subscription.

Other link, not behind a paywall: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf


Just add an extension to your browser that block javascript from running an paywalls disappear on most websites including NYT.
BillRM
 
  3  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 01:55 pm
@BillRM,
By the way it is my opinion that google by default should not show links to sites that have paywalls in place when you do searches.

It is annoying to do a searches only to find that sites given by google have paywalls in place.

In other word google is giving such sites free advs. without any benefits to their searchers
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 02:00 pm
@BillRM,
Goggle is a multibillion dollar business, they didn't get that way by banning paywall sites by default.

How do you know google are giving free advertising? Have you got any data to back it up or is it just a guess?
Lash
 
  0  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 02:11 pm
@izzythepush,
It would be great if Trump goes, but this case should skewer Biden first for his guilt—and Trump for any reasonable accusation.
Lash
 
  0  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 02:17 pm
@blatham,
They were both wrong.

I have NO PROBLEM saying it. You have a tribal need to protect one brand of corruption.

I don’t approve any corruption.

Why do you?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 02:19 pm
@izzythepush,
I never thought I see the day when a socialist would defend a multi billion dollar company... you feeling ok today?
revelette1
 
  2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 02:41 pm
@engineer,
I thought there would be other ways or other sources other than a paid subscription.

It is only Blatham turn me onto the problem various news sites (used to be newspapers; still is I guess but no one buys them that I know of) have of making a profit and so keeping on with reporting the news. So, I like the NYT and WP so I paid a subscription for those two to support them.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 02:44 pm
@Lash,
That is akin to worrying about mite in your eye rather than the plank in your eye obstructing your view. Let the House do it's constitutional duties and bring impeachment proceedings against Trump. No one is stopping anyone from writing articles of the Ukraine/Biden's story. People can walk and chew gum at the same time. For balancing sake, maybe open up a thread and discuss that subject. I am not interested too much; from what I have read, not too much there.
BillW
 
  4  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 03:04 pm
Quote:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/15/1560134/-How-the-GOP-s-Double-Life-Blew-Up-in-Its-Face

How the GOP’s Double Life Blew Up in Its Face

For 60 years now, the Republican party has managed to hold together an unlikely coalition of the business elite with angry, xenophobic, racist lower- to middle-class white voters. The GOP has maintained the veneer of a normal, respectable political party while plumbing the depths of hatred, crassly manipulating public opinion and spreading outrageous conspiracy theories. Like a seemingly distinguished man hiding a secret life of sin, the GOP has managed to conceal its more openly ugly side in plain sight – greatly enabled by the media and years of false equivalence reporting.

Today the media is struggling with how to tell the story of Trump’s demolition of the GOP, having spent so many years playing down the role of the nativist faction of the party in the interest of “balance” – i.e., the terror of ever being accused of being liberal. It is therefore important that we be as clear and straightforward as possible in exposing and demanding coverage of the truth.

No, Trump and his hateful minions did not suddenly descend from outer space to invade America in 2015. Rather, they have been purposely and assiduously cultivated by conservative elites since the 1950s. Indeed, the conservative base is so secure in its convictions, so well organized and so motivated precisely because they are the armies of voters that the GOP has been training and empowering for decades.

In other words, what we are seeing in the Republican party today is not truly a war of two opposing factions but the spectacle of the faction that has long been used by the other finally claiming the driver’s seat. Election after election, Republicans have stirred up their masses with all kinds of absurd propaganda in order to get them to vote for policies that overwhelmingly favor corporations and the wealthy. This time, the nativists want to put their man in the White House to make sure they don’t get fooled again.

That said, it’s important to realize that their actual agenda is only marginally different from the corporatists, as the conservative noise machine has done such a fantastic job getting poorer whites to accept and internalize the agenda of the 1%. The nativists still dutifully believe that climate change is a hoax, just as Exxon-Mobil and the Koch Brothers taught them; they still support tax cuts tilted to the super-rich and deregulation to let corporations continue to rip them off and poison their air and water.

Indeed, it’s pretty clear that if Trump were sane, stable and savvy, the GOP would back him unequivocally rather than in the reluctant and awkward way they are doing now.

If we do not push the media, academics and others to tell the real story of the GOP, you can guarantee they will once again be allowed to play their double game two or four years from now. Rather than letting them blame whatever happens in the 2016 election solely on Trump, we need to do our part to make everyone understand how the Republican party purposely built the politics of hate, fear and ignorance – before it rightly blew up in their faces.

Today’s Republican party is built on nativist, hateful mass movements from the Red Scare of the ‘50s to the Massive Resistance of the ‘60s to the Moral Majority of the ‘80s and the Tea Party of the ‘00s. Trumpism is just the latest such incarnation – just the only one that (so far) refuses to be co-opted or controlled.

From McCarthy to Trump

The Awkward Marriage of Eisenhower and McCarthy

The lineage from Senator Joe McCarthy to Donald Trump is shockingly direct, as both Trump and his despicable consigliere Roger Stone are longtime protégés of McCarthy hatchet man Roy Cohn. If you think Trump’s style looks familiar, you’re not imagining it.

Much like Trump today, McCarthy latched onto popular fears and exacerbated them for political advantage. His claims that the Federal government was infiltrated by countless Communist spies attracted enormous media attention while giving the nativist masses of the time scapegoats on which to focus their ire.

If McCarthy was the ugly, embarrassing face of the GOP in the 1950s, it had a much more prominent, distinguished face in President Dwight D. Eisenhower. While there is no question that Ike thought little of McCarthy, he refused to publicly rebuke him.

Eisenhower’s stated reason was that the president should not stoop to the level of the mudslingers. But this set an unfortunate Republican party precedent of failing to stand up to its worst elements – while the party has steadily reaped the political benefits of the mob fervor whipped up by those elements.

In fact, while McCarthy’s career flamed out quickly – from his rise in 1950 to his censure in 1954 and early death in 1957 – the spirit of the Red Scare lived on in his party for many years to come. Just look at the man Eisenhower chose to be his VP…

Nixon & the Harnessing of White Rage

Joe McCarthy was neither the only nor the first Republican politician to shamelessly use anti-communism as a political weapon. Before McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) – which a young California Congressman named Richard M. Nixon skillfully leveraged to use to advance his career.

In 1948, Nixon made headlines by calling as witnesses to HUAC a former Communist party member, Whittaker Chambers, and the State Department official Chambers claimed to have been his fellow Communist spy, Alger Hiss. Nixon built on his reputation from that case to run for the U.S. Senate in 1950 against Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas – by attacking her as a Communist “Pink Lady”. As the author of “The Pink Lady: The Many Lives of Helen Gahagan Douglas”, Sally Denton, put it:

“In a carefully orchestrated whispering campaign of smear, fear, and innuendo that would go down in American history as the dirtiest ever—while also becoming the model for the next half-century and beyond—Nixon exploited America’s xenophobic suspicions and reflexive chauvinism with devastating consequences.”

If this again is sounding familiar, note that Nixon’s campaign manager, Murray Chotiner, taught his dirty tricks techniques via “GOP Schools” to countless Republican operatives – including Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

In 1950, the beloved General Eisenhower chose the untested Senator Nixon to be his vice-presidential running mate – gaining Nixon’s rabid supporters while somehow failing to dent Ike’s towering reputation. Thus did the double life of the Republican party first besmirch the White House.

Nixon, who grew up poor, was a master at stirring up the resentments of working class whites – then sometimes known as “the Hard Hats” – against the East Coast “elites.” In his 1968 presidential campaign and afterwards, he infamously stole the political fire of Alabama governor/presidential candidate George Wallace by incorporating the racist white backlash against LBJ’s Civil Rights Act into the Republican party via the infamous “Southern strategy.”

Nixon hired an advertising executive, H. R. Haldeman to be his Chief of Staff and learned how to use the new tool of television to help appeal to what he called “the Silent Majority” – thanks in part to the media coaching of a young aide named Roger Ailes.

Nixon’s skillful exploitation of the resentments of the common man blew up in the GOP’s face as his cynical dealings and dirty tricks were exposed with the twin disasters of Watergate and Vietnam. But the crooked alumni of Nixon’s school of dirty tricks went on to incorporate his crooked innovations into the political operations of the Republican party for years to come – including not just Ailes but such guttersnipes as Roger Stone.

Reagan and the Mainstreaming of the GOP’s Double Life

While many of Nixon’s domestic policies were actually quite liberal by current Republican standards (e.g., founding the EPA and proposing a national health insurance policy), his successors figured out how to use his tricks of manipulating the masses to more effectively support the agenda of the Republican party’s core constituencies, corporate America and the wealthy.

While Hollywood may not have been the best outlet for Ronald Reagan’s acting skills, he flourished as a spokesman for General Electric from 1954 to 1962. In fact, he never really stopped being a corporate pitchman to the masses after that point – but just kept moving up to more prominent venues.

While the awkward, scowling Nixon had been easy to hate, the grandfatherly Great Communicator was the opposite. Reagan made the double life of the Republican party a non-issue by making even the most outrageous right-wing policies sound mainstream.

Whether scapegoating “welfare mothers,” firing striking air traffic controllers en masse, trying to shut down agencies from the EPA to HUD, or invading little countries like Grenada, he still came across as a gee-whiz nice guy with our best interests at heart. This even as he was employing some of the most despicable dirty tricksters in American politics to polish that image in the eyes of Nixon’s Silent Majority – Roger Ailes, Roger Stone, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, etc.

It was during this period that Christian fundamentalists became such an important part of the Republican base. Televangelists brought another powerful style of communication and persuasion into the GOP, one that made the party even more effective at preaching to the masses. The obscene contradictions of “family values” and conservative policies favoring the wealthy – e.g., supply side economics – were all smoothed over by Reagan’s soothing voice.

Many in the media and elsewhere were taken in, leaving such blatant dog whistles as Reagan speaking on “state’s rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi – a few miles from where three civil rights workers were killed in 1964 – during his 1980 campaign mostly glossed over. Reagan was, in short, the kind of charming, distinguished guy who could get away with that shocking double life.

Bush I vs. Gingrich: the GOP Chooses the Dark Side

Following Reagan’s presidency, his vice president George H.W. Bush promised a “kindler, gentler” approach. That did not include the manner in which he made it to the White House – for which he employed the same old dirty tricks crowd, Lee Atwater in particular, stooping as low as the outrageous, racist Willy Horton commercial tying his opponent Mike Dukakis to a paroled murderer.

Beyond those political skeletons in his closet, the famously preppy Bush I had one of the stronger claims to outward respectability among postwar Republican leaders. He had a long resume, appointed some praiseworthy department heads (Jack Kemp, Bill Reilly, Colin Powell, etc.), signed the Americans with Disabilities Act and a major expansion of the Clean Air Act, and wisely stopped the Persian Gulf War after its primary objective was accomplished.

Yet to a conservative political establishment and rank-and-file increasingly responding to the angry voices of Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts, he failed to toss the red meat they had grown to expect. After Bush abandoned his “no new taxes” pledge in a balanced budget deal with the Democrats, conservatives turned on him, in a foreshadowing of the Republican base’s rejection of the GOP establishment in 2016.

Indeed, I consider this the pivotal moment leading up to today’s downfall of the GOP – a sort of coup within the ranks led by one Newt Gingrich. As House Republican Whip in 1990, Gingrich killed Bush’s budget deal – and helped sink Bush’s chances in the 1992 election against Bill Clinton.

As soon as the Republicans became Gingrich’s party, their fate was set. His strategy of almost never compromising – and in fact, doing everything possible to block a Democratic president from achieving anything – remains Republican doctrine. And while it has helped Republicans gain the loyalty of its increasingly angry and cynical base of white middle- to lower-class voters and thereby win many elections until now, this has proven the ultimate example of Pyrrhic victory.

In the process of applying Gingrich’s strategy, Republicans have prevented the United States from dealing with countless issues from immigration to the environment to criminal justice reform. Today their party finally is feeling the pain of its failure to deliver anything but more extreme, misplaced anger to their base.

Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” (2004) arguably did the best job of summing up this strategy as it stood in the 1990s – employing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck to rile up the Republican base to fight cultural wars against “liberal elites” while disregarding their own economic interests. But a moment’s reflection should reveal that this sort of scorched earth approach is, by its very nature, unsustainable. Hatred and anger cannot feed, clothe or house anyone – unless they are taken to the most horrific extremes of ethnic cleansing, where the means of existence are stolen from other groups in the most barbaric manner.

And that brings us to Trump.

GOPocalypse?

The GOP has been heading toward moral and ideological bankruptcy for quite some time now. With the Tea Party driving the Republican clown car into a brick wall over the past decade, it is hard to see how the party could have avoided turning to a leader like Trump. Every incentive in the American conservative universe has been for the party and its representatives to be less rational and reasonable, not more so. The idea that any leader could rise up out of this swamp and lead the party in any sort of constructive direction is absurd.

“Garbage in, garbage in” is not applicable simply to computer programming, but to human beings as well. If you feed your people a diet of conspiracy theories and idiotic, illogical talking points every day, don’t expect them to make thoughtful, reasonable decisions. People convinced through years of brainwashing that their president is a Muslim plant and that all the world’s scientists are in conspiracy against them will elect a Trump, not a Churchill.

Could anyone expect otherwise?

The bottom line, then, is that, once the dust from the 2016 election settles, we must not allow the GOP and the media to peddle the same snake oil about today’s Republicans being just another mainstream party. No, this party has allowed itself to rot down to its core, and pretending otherwise will only continue to severely damage a country that cannot tolerate its problems being blocked by blind, inchoate white rage anymore.

Trump is just a symptom, and a predictable one, of the cynical, destructive misinformation and ideology of which the GOP has promoted the spread for six decades now. This is why Trump losing will not by itself solve all of the GOP’s or the nation’s issues. To be sure, if he is beaten in a big enough landslide to send a resounding message, it will help.

But it’s time to demand that the media stop looking the other way as the likes of Fox News, Republican leaders, the NRA, etc. fill people’s heads with more and more hateful nonsense. Trump is a sign of where this approach inevitably leads. We, and the media, must expose the ugliness of the Republican’s double life every single day until they are forced to leave it behind and once again become the mainstream party they’ve so long claimed to be.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 03:25 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
That was the position of the wider U.S. government, as well as other other governments and international institutions.

Don't confuse him with facts.


I don't understand why Trump supporters don't see the difference. One situation is that the US asks the Ukraine to clean out corrupt prosecutor before aid will be granted, the second situation is the US president asks Ukraine to help concoct fake story about Biden and son to help him destroy 2 more American citizens or he may just hold up promised aid package until they deliver. In the first the US is asking the foreign govt. to clean up their act, in the second the US president is asking a foreign govt. to either spy on or make up stories about 2 American citizens. In other words, Donald Trump was trying to extort a foreign govt. to assist him in political dirty tricks that would only benefit Trump and did absolutely nothing for the rest of the country.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 03:35 pm
Quote:
Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything,' former Ukrainian prosecutor says

A former Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated a gas company tied to Hunter Biden said Thursday that there was no evidence the former vice president's son engaged in illegal activity.

"From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” Yuriy Lutsenko told The Washington Post.

Lutsenko, who served as Ukraine's prosecutor general from May 2016 until last month, closed the investigation into the gas company Burisma and its oligarch owner in 2017, The New York Times has reported. Earlier this year, Lutsenko met with President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and discussed Burisma, Lutsenko's spokeswoman told Bloomberg. Then in March, according to the Times, Lutsenko reopened an investigation into the company, though his spokeswoman has disputed that.

The meetings with Giuliani were referred to in a bombshell whistleblower complaint unsealed Thursday that alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens.

In May, Lutsenko told Bloomberg News that his office had found no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden or his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, who'd helped to oust Lutsenko's predecessor.

That prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had been accused of failing to act in numerous corruption cases, including the investigation into Burisma. In addition to the United States government, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have demanded that Shokin be replaced.
On Thursday, Lutsenko said he did not know of any Trump administration officials going to Ukraine to investigate the claims against the Bidens.
“No American groups came to Ukraine for an investigation,” he told The Post.

Lutsenko added that whatever wrongdoing there might have been at Burisma took place before Biden joined the company.
“Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,” Lutsenko told the Post.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/hunter-biden-did-not-violate-anything-former-ukrainian-prosecutor-says-n1059136
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 03:37 pm
@izzythepush,
It’s going on my watch list. I don’t think I’ve ever not liked something Malkovich was in.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 04:26 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
Just my impression mind you, and I guess international and domestic perspectives may have differed as well.

Spot on in my view. Chirac was a crook, but he was right once, on Iraq.

For a long time, many people me included hoped for justice to be served on him. A rock band even made a song about it. Then all the cases died in court one way or another... Maybe Sarko will do some jail time?

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 04:54 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Let the House do its constitutional duties and bring impeachment proceedings against Trump.

This is why the Democratic Party should be outlawed.

Abusing the law to conduct witch hunts against people who disagree with progressives is not a Constitutional duty.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 06:30 pm
“Under a Warren Admin would you allow ur VP child to serve on the board of a foreign country’s company?”

Liz: No...um...Yes...Um I have to...Um...

JFC Liz’s a s s must be full of mfn splinters from sittin on the fence 24/7/365
Why are no-brainers so hard?
hightor
 
  4  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 06:55 pm

Trump, Giuliani, and Manafort: The Ukraine Scheme


The effort by President Trump to pressure the government of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son had its origins in an earlier endeavor to obtain information that might provide a pretext and political cover for the president to pardon his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to previously undisclosed records.

These records indicate that attorneys representing Trump and Manafort respectively had at least nine conversations relating to this effort, beginning in the early days of the Trump administration, and lasting until as recently as May of this year. Through these deliberations carried on by his attorneys, Manafort exhorted the White House to press Ukrainian officials to investigate and discredit individuals, both in the US and in Ukraine, who he believed had published damning information about his political consulting work in the Ukraine. A person who participated in the joint defense agreement between President Trump and others under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, including Manafort, allowed me to review extensive handwritten notes that memorialized conversations relating to Manafort and Ukraine between Manafort’s and Trump’s legal teams, including Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

These new disclosures emerge as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s conduct. What prompted her actions were the new allegations that surfaced last week that Trump had pressured Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Trump’s potential 2020 campaign rival, Biden, and his son Hunter, placing a freeze on a quarter of a billion dollars in military assistance to Ukraine as leverage. The impeachment inquiry will also examine whether President Trump obstructed justice by attempting to curtail investigations by the FBI and the special counsel into Russia’s covert interference in the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.

New information in this story suggests that these two, seemingly unrelated scandals, in which the House will judge whether the president’s conduct in each case constituted extra-legal and extra-constitutional abuses of presidential power, are in fact inextricably linked: the Ukrainian initiative appears to have begun in service of formulating a rationale by which the president could pardon Manafort, as part of an effort to undermine the special counsel’s investigation.

From 2004 to 2014, Manafort had advised President Viktor Yanukovych, who advocated that his country sever ties with the United States and other Western nations, and align itself more closely with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. After Yanukovych fled the country in disgrace in 2014, a ledger was recovered from the burned-out ruins of his Party of Regions. Its records showed that Yanukovych and his political allies had made some $12.7 million in secret cash payments to Manafort. The disclosure led directly to Manafort’s resignation in August 2016 as chairman of the Trump presidential campaign.

The records I have reviewed also indicate that on at least three occasions, Rudy Giuliani was in communication with Manafort’s legal team to discuss how the White House was pushing a narrative that the Democratic National Committee, Democratic donors, and Ukrainian government officials had “colluded” to defeat Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid. (This story has since been debunked as baseless, though that has not prevented Trump, Giuliani, and other surrogates in conservative media from repeatedly pushing the story.)

In particular, the records show that Manafort’s camp provided Giuliani with information designed to smear two people: one was a Ukrainian journalist and political activist named Serhiy Leshchenko, whom Manafort believed, correctly, of helping to uncover Manafort’s secret payments from Yanukovych; another was Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American political consultant and US citizen, whom Manafort suspected, mistakenly in this case, was also behind the exposé. The records also show that Giuliani and attorneys for Manafort exchanged information about the then US ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who Giuliani believed had attempted to undercut his covert Ukrainian diplomacy and fact-finding; the records are unclear as to whether it was Giuliani or Manafort’s attorney who first initiated their discussion about her.

After his arrest in 2017, Manafort continued to encourage President Trump and his lawyers to engage in this effort when they joined Manafort in a joint legal defense agreement. Attorneys are allowed to enter into such agreements in order share information and coordinate legal, public relations, and political strategies—in this case regarding the investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including that of the special counsel. Federal courts have long ruled that joint defense agreements are legal to protect the due process rights of those under investigation, as long as they are not used by potential defendants to coordinate providing cover stories or false information to prosecutors.

Trump’s dangling of pardons to Manafort and others who might provide damaging testimony against the president to law enforcement agents, such as his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, have been widely reported, both by news media outlets and in the Mueller Report. According to the participant in the joint defense agreement discussions, Manafort was distressed at the uncertainty about whether President Trump would pardon him. There was no formal understanding that Trump would do so, because this would instantly have raised the specter of whether such a pardon might constitute an obstruction of justice.

Instead, Manafort and those around him took the very public efforts by Giuliani to press Ukraine to investigate Manafort’s accusers as a favorable signal that the president might still pardon him after the 2020 presidential election. Trump is famously transactional, and Manafort feared that the president might be leading him on, according to the person who was party to the joint defense agreement communications. Giuliani’s constant touting of the Ukraine issue proved “reassuring” to Manafort, albeit to “a limited degree,” according to this person.

If Giuliani’s own account can be believed, it was while he was looking into the purported Ukrainian collusion to defeat Trump that he stumbled upon Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. “The reality is I came about this by accident, investigating Ukrainian collusion with Democrats to affect the election,” Giuliani said in an interview with Fox News on May 10.

Giuliani did not add that he was also pressing for Kiev to investigate Manafort’s enemies. As I first disclosed last year in an article for Vox, Manafort encouraged the president and his top aides in this effort from the first days of the administration in early 2017. In recent months, both Trump and Giuliani have intensified those efforts, pressuring Ukraine to investigate not only Leshchenko and Chalupa, but also other Ukrainian government officials, activists, and journalists—and specifically to look into any part they may have had in publishing details of Manafort’s illicit political consulting work in the Ukraine.

This past weekend, Trump acknowledged that he had also encouraged President Zelensky during a July 25 telephone call to have Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings. The White House has released a memorandum based on notes from officials, not a verbatim record. In it, Trump expressed concern to Zelensky that he was “surrounding [him]self with some of the same people,” an apparent reference to Leshchenko. Trump went on to disparage the Mueller Report, saying, “a lot of it started with Ukraine,” a seeming allusion to Manafort’s problems. And he urged the Ukrainian president to take calls from both his personal lawyer and Attorney General William Barr. Giuliani has admitted to repeatedly pressing the Manafort matter with Ukrainian officials.

The allegations that President Trump improperly pressured the head of state of a foreign government to improperly investigate the son of his potential Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential race, and even withheld $250 million in military aid to that country, have become grounds for an impeachment inquiry. The new disclosures in this story underscore how this scheme originated in the long-running coordination between Trump, Giuliani, and Manafort to frustrate the Mueller investigation.

*

Giuliani’s smear campaign already met with some success. After Giuliani had to cancel a trip to Kiev earlier this year to meet with Zelensky to press the president’s agenda of having Ukraine investigate Trump’s political adversaries, Giuliani blamed Leshchenko for generating the publicity about it. In 2016, Leshchenko had held a press conference in Kiev to publicize the “black ledger” that forced Manafort’s resignation from Trump’s campaign.

On May 10, Giuliani lashed out at Leshchenko, characterizing him as one of several people around Zelensky who were “enemies of the president” and “enemies of the United States.” Without offering any evidence to substantiate this disparagement, Giuliani now claimed that the ledgers had been doctored or forged. He even alleged that Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee were involved in the effort to bring the ledger to light. On Fox News this past Sunday, Giuliani added to his conspiracy theory the claim that George Soros was somehow involved in “Ukrainian collusion.”

Writing in The Washington Post on Saturday, Leshchenko—who had for a time been a member of the Ukrainian parliament—wrote that Giuliani’s accusations had “had a devastating effect on my political career.” “Giuliani’s smear,” he said, “cost me a job in the new administration.” Leshchenko had been an adviser on Zelensky’s team, but facing this onslaught from Trump’s attorney and his media allies, he had felt forced to withdraw in order to avoid creating problems for the Ukrainian president.

Alexandra Chalupa has faced similar attacks, encouraged by Manafort via the joint defense agreement. Chalupa had worked part-time as a political consultant to the Democratic National Committee, and Manafort claimed that she, too, had been involved in bringing the black ledger to light. Her consultancy for the DNC had involved outreach to Ukrainian-American voters, not opposition research; and she had conducted her research on Manafort entirely on her own account. Although Chalupa mentioned what she was doing to colleagues at the DNC, they took no interest in her efforts, and in July 2016 she quit working for the DNC to focus on human rights advocacy. Although she did independently report on Manafort’s work in Ukraine, she played no part in exposing the black ledger.

President Trump and his surrogates, however, had their own motives for attacking Chalupa. After the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian officials was revealed, they used Chalupa’s work to argue that Democrats had engaged in much the same conduct: Chalupa’s outreach to Ukrainian officials, they said, was no different. As I wrote for the Daily in January: “This argument does not stand up to scrutiny but the White House’s efforts were designed to persuade some—especially among the president’s conservative base—to believe that a moral and legal equivalence applied.”

Acting in part on Manafort’s advice, on July 10, 2017, then White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders encouraged reporters to investigate how, she claimed, “the Democrat National Committee coordinated opposition research directly with the Ukrainian Embassy.” Two days later, Fox News’s Sean Hannity began efforts to repeatedly amplify the allegations evening after evening on his show. On July 24, Republicans on Capitol Hill, among them Senator Charles Grassley, of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it would investigate whether Chalupa’s activity constituted a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (there would be no such finding). On July 25, President Trump himself tweeted: “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign—‘quietly working to boost Clinton.’ So where is the investigation A.G.”

*

Manafort is currently serving a seven-and-a-half-year federal prison sentence of eight felony counts, including money-laundering, tax avoidance, and mortgage fraud. Following those convictions in August 2018, Manafort agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. As part of a plea bargain in which he admitted to additional crimes of witness-tampering and money-laundering, Manafort was guaranteed leniency as long as he were to “fully, truthfully, completely and forthrightly” answer any questions about “any and all matters” the government wanted to ask about.

But Manafort’s cooperation was a ruse. Little more than three months later, in December, the special counsel stated in federal court that Manafort had broken his cooperation agreement by telling prosecutors and FBI agents “multiple discernible lies.” Even more unsettling were disclosures that an attorney for Manafort had been constantly briefing President Trump’s attorneys on what Manafort was being asked and what he was telling the special counsel. Manafort and his attorneys argued that this conduct was legal under his joint legal defense agreement with the president—although many seasoned prosecutors were appalled that this had been allowed to continue.

Harry Littman, a former United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, noted at the time in The Washington Post that “the open pipeline between cooperator Manafort and suspect Trump may have been not only extraordinary but also criminal”—potentially qualifying as crimes of obstruction and witness-tampering on both sides. Littman explained:

On Manafort’s and [his defense attorney’s] end, there is a circumstantial case for obstruction of justice. What purpose other than an attempt to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the investigation of the president can be discerned from Manafort’s service as a double agent? And on the Trump side, the communications emit a strong scent of illegal witness tampering (and possibly obstruction as well).

Littman also pointed out that Mueller had the right to compel attorneys for both the president and Manafort to testify about their discussions as part of an inquiry into whether they or their clients had obstructed justice. But Littman noted that “political considerations” might “possibly intercede.” Trump and his allies would criticize Mueller for overreach, he considered, and the then Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker might not permit Mueller to serve subpoenas.

In the end, Mueller did not follow up. Nor have Democrats in the House, who had a similar legitimate right to independently investigate the matter. If they had, they would have discovered that as late as May of this year, Giuliani was in touch with Manafort’s attorneys to discuss how they could keep pushing the “Ukrainian collusion” narrative, as the records shown me demonstrate. In the absence of any branch of government holding them accountable, Trump and Giuliani faced no sanction for doing so. They had good reason, after all, to believe they were invincible.
September 25, 2019

Baldimo
 
  -2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 08:36 pm
@hightor,
Let the cover up begin, the left is going to push so hard on this and fail yet again, just like they did with the Steele Dossier and the Russia Treason scam.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 08:53 pm
@Baldimo,
Whichever White House adviser was behind the policy of "just making it all public immediately" deserves a raise in their salary from Mr. Trump.

The left might have been able to milk this non-story for a bit if they'd had to fight to get access to the transcript and the complaint. But now there is nowhere for them to go with this.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Thu 26 Sep, 2019 10:48 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Liz: No...um...Yes...Um I have to...Um...

JFC Liz’s a s s must be full of mfn splinters from sittin on the fence 24/7/365


Maybe that head-dress band is too tight?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 27 Sep, 2019 12:48 am
@Baldimo,
Pointing out facts isn't the same as defending. What sort of education did you have?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 08:25:27