Not news: Clinton campaign aided by Ukrainian government

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Quote

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN 

01/11/2017 05:05 AM EST

 

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.”

There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.

Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.

Russia’s meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. The U.S. intelligence community undertook the rare move of publicizing its findings on the matter, and President Barack Obama took several steps to officially retaliate, while members of Congress continue pushing for more investigations into the hacking and a harder line against Russia, which was already viewed in Washington as America’s leading foreign adversary.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S. administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about Poroshenko’s regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin’s regime.

Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings with U.S. government officials “to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations.” Revelations about Ukraine’s anti-Trump efforts could further set back those efforts.

“Things seem to be going from bad to worse for Ukraine,” said David A. Merkel, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who helped oversee U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine while working in George W. Bush’s State Department and National Security Council.

Merkel, who has served as an election observer in Ukrainian presidential elections dating back to 1993, noted there’s some irony in Ukraine and Russia taking opposite sides in the 2016 presidential race, given that past Ukrainian elections were widely viewed in Washington’s foreign policy community as proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia.

“Now, it seems that a U.S. election may have been seen as a surrogate battle by those in Kiev and Moscow,” Merkel said.

The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.

In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 — months before Manafort had taken any role in Trump’s campaign — Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, “I felt there was a Russia connection,” Chalupa recalled. “And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved in this election,” said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was “Putin’s political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections.”

She said she shared her concern with Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his radar, but that he wasn’t particularly concerned about the operative’s ties to Trump since he didn’t believe Trump stood much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.

That was not an uncommon view at the time, and, perhaps as a result, Trump’s ties to Russia — let alone Manafort’s — were not the subject of much attention. That all started to change just four days after Chalupa’s meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort’s hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC’s communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation.

 

A former DNC staffer described the exchange as an “informal conversation,” saying “‘briefing’ makes it sound way too formal,” and adding, “We were not directing or driving her work on this.” Yet, the former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the DNC’s encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych.

While the embassy declined that request, officials there became “helpful” in Chalupa’s efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads with them. “If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with.” But she stressed, “There were no documents given, nothing like that.”

Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions. She added, though, “they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It’s a political issue, and they didn’t want to get involved politically because they couldn’t.”

Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining “we were stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to interfere into the campaign affairs.”

Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine. According to the embassy’s website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian Hanna Hopko, who discussed “Ukraine’s fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas,” and longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Melanne Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign.

Shulyar said her work with Chalupa “didn’t involve the campaign,” and she specifically stressed that “We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort.”

But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.

 

read more at: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

[alexava 6,973]

Trump didn't need to be sabotaged 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

You have a Ukraine-American operative consulting the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian officials about the Trump campaign and it's not behind each party's back. This was done in coordination. This story was published back in January by Politico. The media are obsessed with the "collusion" angle of Trump's campaign yet didn't bother to mention anything about this story of the Clinton campaign back in January. They've decided to bury it and make it unimportant. Why didn't they cover it?

The lack of coverage of actual "collusion" crystallizes that it's not really about collusion. If the self-righteous media actually cared so deeply about collusion then they would have taken time out of their wall-to-wall coverage of Trump-Russian "collusion" to mention this story about the Ukraine-American operative helping the Clinton campaign. But the media don't actually care about collusion. 

While Russia's actions to interfere in the election were certainly more prominent than any other foreign entity to influence the election, the actual "collusion" aspect has been proven to be more prominent from the Clinton-Ukraine side. 

 

[Mikey 16,576]

Of course the Russians wanted Clinton to win the election. They already had a quid-pro-quo relationship established with her through their $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation in return for her assistance in Russia buying 20% of America's uranium. The Clinton Cartel and the Russians are business partners, they'd have much preferred someone they could buy in the Whitehouse.

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You have a Ukraine-American operative consulting the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian officials about the Trump campaign and it's not behind each party's back. This was done in coordination. This story was published back in January by Politico. The media are obsessed with the "collusion" angle of Trump's campaign yet didn't bother to mention anything about this story of the Clinton campaign back in January. They've decided to bury it and make it unimportant. Why didn't they cover it?

The lack of coverage of actual "collusion" crystallizes that it's not really about collusion. If the self-righteous media actually cared so deeply about collusion then they would have taken time out of their wall-to-wall coverage of Trump-Russian "collusion" to mention this story about the Ukraine-American operative helping the Clinton campaign. But the media don't actually care about collusion. 

While Russia's actions to interfere in the election were certainly more prominent than any other foreign entity to influence the election, the actual "collusion" aspect has been proven to be more prominent from the Clinton-Ukraine side. 

 

"Collusion" is not a legal term.   It's a subjective - political - term.

Regardless, Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of it.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Of course the Russians wanted Clinton to win the election. They already had a quid-pro-quo relationship established with her through their $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation in return for her assistance in Russia buying 20% of America's uranium. The Clinton Cartel and the Russians are business partners, they'd have much preferred someone they could buy in the Whitehouse.

Seriously?  Puten hates Clinton.

[alexava 6,973]

Isn't Ukraine an ally and Russia enemy 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Collusion" is not a legal term.   It's a subjective - political - term.

Regardless, Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of it.

 

No. It's a reach for Democrats to say that Trump Jr. is guilty of "collusion".

Collusion would entail an agreement or coordination of carrying out something. 

What did Trump Jr. offer the Russian lawyer in exchange for info? Just agreeing to meet with her because he thought he would get some dirt on Clinton is not collusion. This was a one time meeting and there was no follow up to try and get more info. No coordinating of info or being involved in the interference of the election means no collusion. Was that meeting inappropriate? Absolutely. Trump Jr. was foolish to take that meeting. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of collusion. 

For Democrats and Mueller to prove collusion, they're going to have to find evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on getting info on Hilary or that the Trump campaign knew about Russia's plan to hack the DNC e-mails and Podesta e-mail. So far there hasn't been any evidence to support collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

No. It's a reach for Democrats to say that Trump Jr. is guilty of "collusion".

Collusion would entail an agreement or coordination of carrying out something. 

What did Trump Jr. offer the Russian lawyer in exchange for info? Just agreeing to meet with her because he thought he would get some dirt on Clinton is not collusion. This was a one time meeting and there was no follow up to try and get more info. No coordinating of info or being involved in the interference of the election means no collusion. Was that meeting inappropriate? Absolutely. Trump Jr. was foolish to take that meeting. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of collusion. 

For Democrats and Mueller to prove collusion, they're going to have to find evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on getting info on Hilary or that the Trump campaign knew about Russia's plan to hack the DNC e-mails and Podesta e-mail. So far there hasn't been any evidence to support collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Fascinating.

That sounds exactly like the sort of arguments the Clinton's used to make. 

Russians offered Jr info on Hillary

Jr says great, even better if you can time it for late summer.

Legal definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not.   

You sound like Bill equivocating about what "sex" is.

[homersapien 11,362]

15 hours ago, alexava said:

Isn't Ukraine an ally and Russia enemy 

To whom?  Trump?  

Good question.

Personally, I feel we should support Ukraine's independence

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

20 hours ago, alexava said:

Isn't Ukraine an ally and Russia enemy 

Do you think that matters?

 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Do you think that matters?

 

Absolutely. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

13 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Do you think that matters?

 

The motivation of the country hoping to influence a campaign matters, at least to some degree-- it still may be problematic. If a US citizen seeks assistance from another country, however, its illegal regardless.

[DKW 86 7,419]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Fascinating.

That sounds exactly like the sort of arguments the Clinton's used to make. 

Russians offered Jr info on Hillary

Jr says great, even better if you can time it for late summer.

Legal definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not.   

You sound like Bill equivocating about what "sex" is.

This is the most fascinating observation today. Legal Defnitions of Collusion, etc 

"It all depends on what your definition of the word 'collusion' is..."

KARMA...

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The motivation of the country hoping to influence a campaign matters, at least to some degree-- it still may be problematic. If a US citizen seeks assistance from another country, however, its illegal regardless.

Was it illegal when Gore accepted $300K from a Buddhist Monk then?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

23 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Was it illegal when Gore accepted $300K from a Buddhist Monk then?

Illegality by whom?

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Illegality by whom?

I rest my case..."l definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not."

The standard laid down was the Ordinary Layman Standard.  When you have to start CHOOSING SEPARATE STANDARDS for different parties then you have to realize you lost the debate.

1. Your arguments against your opponents need only meet the Ordinary Layman Standard.
2. The arguments for someone against your ideas or allies must meet all criminal legal standards surpassing Reasonable Doubt.

Of course you see nothing wrong with this. This is the problem with the modern DNC. 

[homersapien 11,362]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I rest my case..."l definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not."

The standard laid down was the Ordinary Layman Standard.  When you have to start CHOOSING SEPARATE STANDARDS for different parties then you have to realize you lost the debate.

1. Your arguments against your opponents need only meet the Ordinary Layman Standard.
2. The arguments for someone against your ideas or allies must meet all criminal legal standards surpassing Reasonable Doubt.

Of course you see nothing wrong with this. This is the problem with the modern DNC. 

I think you confused my post with TT's.

[DKW 86 7,419]

No, I am just tired as hell of wannabe talking head pundits confusing issues by declaring differing standards, Tex, for forever, every time you lose a debate you start asking never ending inane questions. IT IS YOUR SIGNATURE MOVE. 

You were declaring guilt based on: Ordinary Layman Standard

The Sewing Circle chimes in with a now hilarious "what the definition of the word is is" answer.

I give the ICE Test to political speech. Integrity, Character, Ethical? If something doesnt meet that, then i disregard it. 

People who are party sycophants can be identified in seconds.

1. OLS if it benefits our side,
2. CPS-Criminal Prosecution Standards ("what the definition of the word is is") if it is negative to our side.

You see, Party Sycophants/Corporate Democrats have disregarded ICE. They will do or say anything that benefits the party line. "All Republicans are owned by corporations." Obviously OLS thinking. Reality: After 2008 no significant Wall Streeter was investigated, prosecuted, or jailed by the DOJ or the Obama Administration after some checks from Wall Street cleared. Obama is giving speeches to Wall Street for almost 2X what the Clintons get. Now lets apply that OLS thinking: "LOOKS LIKE OBAMA & THE DNC IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS." now here comes the CPS reply: "But there is no concrete evidence that the DNC/DOJ/OA was bought." 

Noe lets apply this to the Russian Investigation:

OLS Think: Well, gggooolllllllyyyy, we spent $1.2BN and lost an election....."RUSSIANS!!!!"
CPS Think: A year later, there is still no concrete evidence actually showing anything. 

As a Justice Democrat, I reject this craziness.
Why dont we stop all this crap and obstruction and start to fix the ACA?
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets go get Single Payer or at least start the ball rolling?
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets start a talk on reforming higher education for all?  
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets start a talk on moving toward a Real Living Wage and Wage Stagnation for the Middle Class?
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets move to fix Citizens United? Lets get Corporate Money out of the DNC!
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

[TexasTiger 12,829]

5 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

No, I am just tired as hell of wannabe talking head pundits confusing issues by declaring differing standards, Tex, for forever, every time you lose a debate you start asking never ending inane questions. IT IS YOUR SIGNATURE MOVE. 

You were declaring guilt based on: Ordinary Layman Standard

The Sewing Circle chimes in with a now hilarious "what the definition of the word is is" answer.

I give the ICE Test to political speech. Integrity, Character, Ethical? If something doesnt meet that, then i disregard it. 

People who are party sycophants can be identified in seconds.

1. OLS if it benefits our side,
2. CPS-Criminal Prosecution Standards ("what the definition of the word is is") if it is negative to our side.

You see, Party Sycophants/Corporate Democrats have disregarded ICE. They will do or say anything that benefits the party line. "All Republicans are owned by corporations." Obviously OLS thinking. Reality: After 2008 no significant Wall Streeter was investigated, prosecuted, or jailed by the DOJ or the Obama Administration after some checks from Wall Street cleared. Obama is giving speeches to Wall Street for almost 2X what the Clintons get. Now lets apply that OLS thinking: "LOOKS LIKE OBAMA & THE DNC IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS." now here comes the CPS reply: "But there is no concrete evidence that the DNC/DOJ/OA was bought." 

Noe lets apply this to the Russian Investigation:

OLS Think: Well, gggooolllllllyyyy, we spent $1.2BN and lost an election....."RUSSIANS!!!!"
CPS Think: A year later, there is still no concrete evidence actually showing anything. 

As a Justice Democrat, I reject this craziness.
Why dont we stop all this crap and obstruction and start to fix the ACA?
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets go get Single Payer or at least start the ball rolling?
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets start a talk on reforming higher education for all?  
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets start a talk on moving toward a Real Living Wage and Wage Stagnation for the Middle Class?
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

Lets move to fix Citizens United? Lets get Corporate Money out of the DNC!
But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!!

I've said very little in this thread, and certainly nothing controversial or overtly partisan to a rational person. Rant on like a crazy man David. It's what you do.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

I've said very little in this thread, and certainly nothing controversial or overtly partisan to a rational person. Rant on like a crazy man David. It's what you do.

There is a criminal level of server space wasted on a Nothing Burger story while people in the middle class are hurting and my side of the spectrum has lost another 5 elections...

[TexasTiger 12,829]

12 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

There is a criminal level of server space wasted on a Nothing Burger story while people in the middle class are hurting and my side of the spectrum has lost another 5 elections...

Now you're citing WH talking points while accusing me of rank partisanship just for asking who you were accusing of illegality 19 years ago.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

The motivation of the country hoping to influence a campaign matters, at least to some degree-- it still may be problematic. If a US citizen seeks assistance from another country, however, its illegal regardless.

You stated that. I asked if it was illegal when Gore sought out Poverty Vowed Chinese Buddhist Monks for $100Ks in donations as the Clinton-Gore Campaign's chief fundraiser?

You, as you have for 15 or so years here, instead of answering a question replied with more questions.  

I'll ask it again: Was it proper for Gore to accept illegally gathered foreign money, submitted under the name of a Poor Monk, to expressly avoid Chinese government direct ties to the C-G Campaign? Let me help you here. This is a No-Brainer. The FEC Leveled Record Fines on it and if you use the ICE Standard YOU could have and would have admitted it. 

 

Quote

 

1996 Fund-Raising Scandals Bring Stiff Penalty

Politics: The FEC levies a record $719,000 in fines against DNC and other groups for arranging illegal contributions from foreign sources. September 21, 2002|From the Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Federal Election Commission disclosed Friday that it has imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fund-raising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources.

The FEC documents describe Democratic fund-raisers who set specific prices for foreign nationals to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. A Democratic finance vice chair, for example, said organizers would have to contribute a total of $100,000 in return for Gore's appearance at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles.

 

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

As a Justice Democrat, i acknowledge that it was absolutely wrong for Mr Gore to be there and I am working to clean up that part of the party....

See Tex, that wasnt hard at all...

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

You stated that. I asked if it was illegal when Gore sought out Poverty Vowed Chinese Buddhist Monks for $100Ks in donations as the Clinton-Gore Campaign's chief fundraiser?

You, as you have for 15 or so years here, instead of answering a question replied with more questions.  

I'll ask it again: Was it proper for Gore to accept illegally gathered foreign money, submitted under the name of a Poor Monk, to expressly avoid Chinese government direct ties to the C-G Campaign? Let me help you here. This is a No-Brainer. The FEC Leveled Record Fines on it and if you use the ICE Standard YOU could have and would have admitted it. 

 

 

You changed the question. You didn't simply ask it again. I'm only getting dragged so deep into your tangent in your Trump deflection. I believe anyone who solicits or knowingly accepts money from a foreign source for a campaign should be prosecuted.

You say you identify as a Dem now. Good for you. I'd be happy at this point with a President from either party not in Russia's back pocket.