As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

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.

BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR / February 10, 2019 -

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats?amp

Now that both the House and Senate investigative committees have cleared Donald Trump of Democrat-inspired allegations of Russian collusion, it is worth revisiting one anecdote that escaped significant attention during the hysteria but continues to have U.S. security implications.

As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo. Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally, Georgia.

A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley. The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.

The former president’s trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife’s State Department, internal emails show. That’s because he asked permission to meet Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear giant seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive U.S. uranium reserves. Years later, intelligence documents show, both the Skolkovo and Uranium One projects raised serious security concerns. In 2013, the U.S. military’s leading intelligence think tank in Europe sounded alarm that the Skolkovo project might be a front for economic and military espionage.

“Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions. As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage - with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” EUCOM’s intelligence bulletin wrote in 2013.”Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question - a question that Russia may be asking itself - why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?” A year later, the FBI went further and sent letters warning several U.S. technology companies that had become entangled with Skolkovo that they risked possible espionage. And an agent in the bureau’s Boston office wrote an extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm.

Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application,”Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro wrote in the Boston Business Journal.
The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion and bribery.

Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S. Campbell also warned a major in-kind donor to the Clinton Global Initiative was simultaneously working for Rosatom while the decision for U.S. approval was pending before Hillary Clinton’s department. Ultimately, her department and the Obama administration approved the transaction.

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia - personally and inside their charity - at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.

Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.Simpson then hired retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele - whom the FBI learned was “desperate” to defeat Trump - to write an unverified dossier suggesting that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the election. Simpson, Steele and Perkins Coie all walked Trump-Russia related allegations into the FBI the summer before the election, prompting agents who openly disliked Trump to launch a counterintelligence probe of the GOP nominee shortly before Election Day.

Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election. Congressional investigators have painstakingly pieced together evidence that shows the Clinton research project had extensive contact with Russians. Ohr’s notes show that Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegations against Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled.

Steele’s dossier also relied on information from a Belarus-born Russian businessman, according to numerous reports and a book on the Russia scandal. Steele and Simpson had Russian-tied business connections, too, while they formulated the dossier. Steele worked for the lawyers for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and tried to leverage those connections to help the FBI get evidence from the Russian aluminum magnate against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The effort resulted in FBI agents visiting Deripaska in fall 2016. Deripaska told the agents that no collusion existed.
Likewise, Simpson worked in 2016 for the Russian company Prevezon - which was trying to escape U.S. government penalties - and one of its Russian lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya. In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson admitted he dined with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after her infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016.

Simpson insists the two dinners sandwiching one of the seminal events in the Trump collusion narrative had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting, a claim many Republicans distrust. Whatever the case, there’s little doubt the main instigators of the Clinton-inspired allegations against Trump got information from Russians and were consorting with them during the political opposition project. This past week, we learned from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) that his committee came to the same conclusion as the House: There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

But now there is growing evidence - of Democratic connections to Russia. It’s enough that former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) believes a probe should be opened. There is “obvious collusion the Democrats had through Glenn Simpson and through Fusion GPS, that they were talking directly to Russia,” Nunes told Hill.TV’s “Rising” in an interview to be aired Monday. Collusion can be criminal if it involves conspiracy to break federal laws, or it can involve perfectly legal, unwitting actions that still jeopardize America’s security against a “frenemy” like Russia.

There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns. And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump - one that inspired an FBI probe - was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians. It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.

NOTE: This story has been updated from the original to correct that Uranium One is a Canadian company and to clarify that House and Senate investigating committees have cleared the president.

No need to ask Clinton (and Obama) about their Russian connections-----the paper trail is long and wide.

HILLARY'S STATE DEPT----AND THE OBAMA YEARS---UNRELENTING SCANDAL
By Ari Lieberman/ frontpagemagazine.com

EXCERPT The taxpayer financed-Skolkovo Scandal – While serving as secretary of state, Clinton oversaw a program meant to “reset” relations with Moscow and improve ties. The program centered around the Russian city of Skolkovo near Moscow with the stated aim of “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the American and Russian people.”

Hillary's State Dept program transformed Skolkovo into a technology hub akin to a Silicon Valley. Sensitive American technology was transferred to the Russians, substantially enhancing their military and cyber capabilities. The US Army and the FBI concluded that Russia had exploited the program for military applications.

The FBI warned American technology companies doing business in Skolkovo that the Skolkovo project was a means by which the Russians would acquire dual use technologies and apply them for military ends. According to investigative author Peter Schweizer, Russian and American companies and individuals involved in the Skolkovo fiasco “had major financial ties to the Clintons.”

Moreover, during the Russian reset period, those entities provided the Clintons with “tens of millions of
dollars” in the form of “contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or
investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties.”

===============================

Of all the spurious excuses she gives for her loss, the most ludicrous is that
Hillary says she lost her "sure-thing election" because "Putin doesn't like me."
Comey sucked up big-time--told Congress Putin wanted to “harm Hillary.”

Hillary once bragged that she, alone, was brought into Putin's inner sanctum
where she assured Putin she was worried about wildlife like he was.

Putin whispered to an attentive Hilary that they were BFF.

Secy Hillary and Obama were eager to please Russia w/ the friendly reset button.
Hillary later said the reset gambit was Obama's and her idea "to strengthen Russia."

==============================================

Ex-Pres Clinton is s-o-o-o-o friendly he traveled to Russia to clinch the uranium giveaway deal.
And to pocket a $500,000 dollar speaking fee from a Moscow bank plus a sizeable commission.

Billybooboo even laid his "Hot Damn Hokey Hillbilly Act" on Putin.

Viktor Pinchuk: "I gave $29 million to the Clinton
Foundation and all I got was access to Howdy Doody."

Chelsea Clinton and Viktor Pinchuk who donated $29 million to Clinton Foundation in Kiev, Ukraine 8/21/16.

=====================================

http://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/http://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/

OPINION Ukraine Tried to Tip the Election in Clinton’s Favor
Evidence reveals that Ukraine intervened to tilt the election in favor of its national interests
By Michael Sainato • 01/12/17

Politico reported that the Ukrainian Government worked to aid Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections. The actions taken by government officials included disseminating “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.”

Those documents implicated Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who worked as an adviser for now-ousted Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. However, the concerns that the documents raised weren’t in fact over any quasi-Russian ties, though partisan reporting pushed his narrative. Rather, the documents raised the question of whether Manafort declared the income that he had received from the position. The Podesta Group, a lobbying firm co-founded by Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, also conducted work for Yanukovych.

However, the Manafort narrative not only painted Trump as pro-Russian, but also provided the Clinton campaign with a smear campaign while reaffirming its stance against Russia. It was in Ukraine’s best interest to tilt the election in support of Clinton, who strongly advocated for providing Ukraine with military aid and financial support in order to fight Russian separatists in the country.

Politico noted that Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American working as a consultant for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), met with top Ukrainian Officials in Washington D.C. about forcing Manafort’s resignation in order to perpetuate the narrative that Trump is connected to Russia. Both Chalupa and her sister Andrea have strongly pushed the anti-Russian narrative on social media, in addition to advocating that the electors of the electoral college defect from Trump. The report added, “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.”

In addition to the Chalupas, the co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the alleged hacks, Dmitri Alperovitch, also serves as a senior fellow to the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council, which is an openly anti-Russian organization partly . The Atlantic Council is funded by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who also happens to be one of the most prolific donors to the Clinton Foundation. The DNC denied multiple requests from the FBI to access their servers, effectively forcing the FBI to rely on CrowdStrike’s assessment of the hacks.

The Atlantic Council has propagated anti-Russian sentiment and advocated for bolstering NATO forces in anticipation of a military conflict between with Russia long before Wikileaks released emails from the DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta. In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton its Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was removed in early 2014. In August, Politico reported that Donald Trump’s favorable rhetoric to Russia was concerning Ukraine. The article stated, “Russia wants Trump for U.S. president; Ukraine is terrified by Trump and prefers Hillary Clinton.”

In response to their preferred candidate losing the election, Ukrainian officials are now scrambling to revert from their lobbying for Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko recently signed a $50,000-a-month contract with a lobbying firm to set up meetings with U.S. officials in the new administration. Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk wrote an op-ed on December 29 in the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that Ukraine needs make compromises to establish peace with Russia. After the election, reports surfaced that Pinchuk donated to Trump’s charity to try to gain the same favor and access that his donations to the Clinton Foundation afforded him. “The sole reason the Victor Pinchuk Foundation has reached out to President-elect Trump—as well as other world leaders—has been to promote strengthened and enduring ties between Ukraine and the West,” a spokeswoman for the Pinchuk foundation told ABC News.

While past elections in Ukraine have been viewed as proxy battles between the U.S. and Russia, it appears that the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. faced similar influence from two foreign countries attempting to influence an election outcome preferable to their own national interests.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.