As media obsess over rumors about members of President Donald Trump’s campaign circle and Russia, what media aren’t obsessing about involves Democrats’ side of the aisle. For those in Hillary Clinton’s circle and former president Barack Obama’s, there’s plenty of opportunity for conjecture as Russia and Ukraine ties emerge.
Questions should be asked of Clinton campaign head John Podesta and other operatives associated with Democrats’ national organization the DNC.
A major question is due. Did Ukraine attempt to interfere with our US election?
RUSSIA AND PODESTA
Start with a story at The Daily Caller detailing Podesta’s ties to a set of “high tech renewable energy enterprises”. The ties are complicated, but the story is a must-read because one of the companies “accepted a 1 billion ruble investment” from a Russia company [Rusnano] founded by the country’s president Vladimir Putin. Podesta, according to TDC, “failed to reveal” his vested stock on government financial disclosure forms. Also involved is a shady Russia oligarch Anatoly Chubais “who has been depicted as a corrupt figure.”
Add in the fact the FBI had warned “Boston-area high-tech firms in 2014 about Russian investors” and it becomes obvious questions are due Mr. Podesta:
“Podesta’s emails also show how in 2015 Podesta continued to help Rusnano even though he had left” the boards of the high tech companies in Boston.
Meanwhile, Russia’s largest bank hired the Podesta group to lobby the US government in hopes of getting sanctions eased. John Podesta’s brother runs the group, but John Podesta has lobbied for it. Even far left of center publications like Mother Jones took a dim view of Podesta and other members of the Clinton apparatchik.
Russia and Ukraine are still in conflict over eastern Ukraine, so it isn’t a big surprise activists inside the USA are attempting to impact policy.
Top of the list is pro-Ukraine activist Alexandra Chalupa, a never-Trumper who teamed up with a convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin to come up with opposition research on Trump. According to The Daily Caller, Chalupa actually “directed” a third party to go to the US Dept. of Justice with documents that turned out to be fake. The third party is described as a “South Africa-born Israeli man named Yoni Ariel.” Ariel’s real name is Jonathan Schwartz.
Did Chalupa, a DNC insider, impact national security agencies’ targeting of the Trump campaign?
Chalupa apparently did very well in her activist role:
“According to Politico, Chalupa was paid $412,000 for consulting work from 2004 through June 2016. The last payment was made on June 20 for $25,000, records filed with the Federal Election Commission show.”
Does it matter that former President Barack Obama acted as de facto surrogate for Hillary Clinton’s campaign while he still held the Oval Office? Did fake papers inspire some in the US intelligence community to go after Trump?
Media have buried these stories deliberately. Turns out Yahoo News had a ‘reporter’ working with Chalupa. Yahoo did not publicly disclose this when the site ran stories glorifying people who ‘shaped the 2016 election‘ including Chalupa.
Yesterday, Devin Nunes (R-CA), chair of the House Intel Committee, told reporters there were more FISA warrants “out there” involving Trump and that Trump’s “communications may have been ‘monitored’ during the transition period as part of an ‘incidental collection.’”
There is little justification for ‘monitoring’ or spying on (some might call it ‘wiretapping’ since all communications are scooped up by US intel agencies, and easily accessed) the transition team. How is it acceptable for the US government to use public resources to target an opponent of the president’s party in the White House?
This raises questions about White House and intel community insiders intent on throwing the election. Thus far, all eyes have been directed at Russia by Dem-friendly legacy media in the US. Perhaps it is time to turn some attention to Ukraine and Mrs. Chalupa’s efforts and to Dems in government service.
At odds with all that we know is the long history of policy set by Obama and Hillary Clinton when it came to Russia. Both the president and his first secretary of state were very “flexible” in their dealings with Moscow and the country benefited from their policies.
Federal workers are solidly pro-Democrat. This imbalance within both the bureaucracy and law enforcement and intel sectors creates a serious risk for the Republic. The worst idea John F. Kennedy the Democrat ever had for our Republic was enabling federal workers to unionize. JFK knew he was purchasing voters for his party with US tax dollars. We the people have no representative for our interests when it comes to bargaining, or advocating.
Nothing good will come of a permanent chokehold by a single party on the apparatus of the US government.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/March 23, 2017)