Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Alexandra Chalupa's timeline of her activities and of her fears about Paul Manafort's influence in Ukraine in his capacity as part of the Trump campaign isn't convincing
In late 2015, a small group of Ukrainian-American and Ukrainian civic leaders visiting Washington, D.C. told Chalupa they had heard Manafort’s former clients in Ukraine were remobilizing again, and that Manafort had made a fortune working in Kyiv. ...
It was around this time that Chalupa started to develop a gut feeling that Manafort was poised to help Trump’s bid for the White House. ...
By early 2016, Chalupa notified a senior DNC executive that a political spin doctor who had worked against America’s interests for the pro-Kremlin Yanukovych and was linked to some of the most powerful Russian oligarchs serving Putin was to play an important role in the effort to get Trump elected. ...
On March 28, The New York Times broke the story that Manafort had joined the Trump campaign.
The problem with this timeline and Chalupa's obsession with Manafort's Ukraine connection is that Manafort's overture to Trump to come on to the campaign didn't come until February 29, 2016, according to The New York Times. And the overture came at the urging of Trump's close friend Tom Barrack, who wanted Manafort to help a flailing and inexperienced Trump by managing successfully the potentially explosive upcoming Republican convention in Cleveland. Manafort's Republican political experience dating from 1976 onwards is well known.
Chalupa would have had no reason to believe Manafort would suddenly become active in the Trump campaign in late 2015 and early 2016, as she claims, when it wasn't until sometime in mid-February 2016 that Tom Barrack made his pitch to Manafort.
It is more likely that Manafort became the convenient focus for Chalupa after the fact when all along it was opposition to Trump's proposed opening to Russia which motivated her activism and overtures to the DNC long before Manafort came on the scene.
There is absolutely nothing in this puff piece in The Kyiv Post about Chalupa's longstanding loyalty to and work for the Clintons.
Alexandra Chalupa is at the nexus of what has become the criminalization of a foreign policy difference between Trump Republicans on the one hand and Democrats and NeverTrumpers on the other, like John McCain who was notably famous for his deep involvement in the political dispute in Ukraine.
George Washington tried to warn us about the consequences of entangling foreign alliances, and those have been Exhibit A for the last two years.
If 29% of 2016 population 55 and older have absolutely nothing coming in retirement except Social Security, we're talking about 26 million Americans
Of those 55 and older, 48 percent had nothing put away in a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan or an individual retirement account, according to a GAO estimate for 2016 that was released Tuesday. That’s an improvement from the 52 percent without retirement money in 2013.
Two in five of such households did have access to a traditional pension, also known as a defined benefit plan. However, 29 percent of older Americans had neither a pension nor any assets in a 401(k) or IRA account.
Lee Stranahan in Dec 2018: CNN peddled lies trying to put daylight between DNC and Alexandra Chalupa, but Wikileaks now proves Chalupa was working with Dems to connect Trump to Russia long before DNC was hacked or Trump Tower meeting
And notice how after Hillary's unexpected loss, Chalupa's sister, who admits Alexandra's role with the DNC, is suddenly deeply involved in the effort to spread the story that the Russkies hacked the voting totals of Election 2016.
Over the weekend, Wikileaks tweeted about how CNN had reported last year a denial by the Democratic National Committee and Hilary [sic] Clinton officials of illegal election collusion between the DNC and the government of Ukraine during the 2015 [sic] election. CNN’s conduct is a textbook example of smothering a story and leaving out relevant facts.
The story that CNN was trying to bury was published in Politico in January 2017 titled Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. That story was written by David Stern and Ken Vogel (who is now writing at the New York Times) detailed how a DNC operative named Alexander [sic] Chalupa worked closely with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, including Ukrainian Ambassador Chaly, to try and dig up dirt connecting Donald Trump and Paul Manafort to Russia. The story also mentions that Chalupa told people that the Democrats were planning to hold hearing connecting Trump to Russia in fall of 2016, just before the election.
It should be noted that this illegal attempt to gather information from the Democrats [sic] was underway by March, 2016…which is before the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC was detected as well before the Trump Tower meeting that are cited by the media as examples of Russian collusion. In other words, the DNC was actively working on a plan to connect Trump to Russia before the alleged collusion ever happened.
I reported on this, what, like in July 2017, how POLITICO already in Jan 2017 tried to spin Hillary's collusion with Ukraine
Here, where the exploits of one anti-Russian pro-Ukrainian Alexandra Chalupa may ultimately be the origin for the whole Trump-Russia collusion narrative of the last two years.
She really ought to be investigated and deposed. Maybe she knows more than she's letting on about how the New York Times got the information it published causing Manafort to resign from the Trump campaign.
In the article below John Solomon appears to be completely oblivious to this POLITICO article excerpted at the link above, which outlined how long time Clinton ally and Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa was instrumental in siccing Democrats on Paul Manafort for his alleged Russian ties immediately after Manafort became Trump's campaign manager in 2016. The DNC and Marcy Kaptur in particular are named as very interested parties who gave Chalupa a hearing, as were Ukrainian diplomats. Chalupa also notably claims to have been a major source on Ukraine for the reporter Michael Isikoff.
The upshot is that the Hillary campaign as the pro-Ukrainian in the 2016 race (along with John McCain!) was the intended principal beneficiary of the effort to destroy Manafort for his alleged pro-Russian activities.
Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.
Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Support for single payer healthcare has fallen since 2017, opposition to it has risen, country is divided
I thought Obamacare was supposed to have fixed everything?
You mean it didn't?
Somebody get Obama on the phone.
Border Patrol in Rio Grande Valley has apprehended illegals from 44 countries, on track for 60, not like before when it was the same people over and over again
Border Patrol: 25,000 Illegal Aliens Evaded Capture in Southeast Texas:
"So far, here in south Texas, we’ve apprehended folks from 44 different countries. These are from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, you name it.” Although most illegal aliens hail from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, Ortiz estimates that by the end of the year, Border Patrol will have apprehended people from 60 different countries. ... Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said that although Border Patrol apprehended more than 1 million people in the early- to mid-2000s, it was often the same people, from Mexico, and it was easy to return them. ... “But now, that’s not what we’re dealing with. We’re on pace to have about 900,000 arrests, but that’s 900,000 people that we’re dealing with. Whereas back in the early-2000s, we were dealing with somewhere around 500,000, 600,000 people. We were just arresting the same person over and over and over again. So we’re dealing with something that’s just never been dealt with before. And if we don’t get the support from Congress, we’re going to fail. Period.”
Monday, March 25, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)