Comments

Hillary’s Ukrainian connection — 7 Comments

1. It’s okay for the Clinton campaign and the DNC to collude with foreigners to swing the election, and it’s okay for the Obama administration to have used police powers to further these efforts, because they’re the good guys, or so they believe.

2. “This is hardly new information, but it’s information the MSM seems to have no interest in anymore.” – Neo

   They aren’t interested precisely because it isn’t new; their standard MO is to publicize something when it makes no difference, or waves, then dismiss it later as “old news, already vetted/debunked/covered” and thus not worthy of attention now, when it does start making a difference.

   Kate – the Politico article almost says as much.
   Chalupa didn’t have quid pro quos; she just traded information — with embassy staff and government officials.

   Note the classic double-speak at the end, like all the “spoke anonymously because not authorized to speak publicly” disclaimers on the MSM’s sources.

   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.”

   Kind of stretches the definition of “not involved politically” when you are guiding a political operative doing opposition research on a political candidate and his people.

3. BREAKING – I missed the WaPo story Monday, but take your choice of MSM reports. I’ll go with the one from Politico just because I don’t want to feed clicks to the broadcast journalists and I love the reporter’s name.

   https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/02/mike-pompeo-trump-ukraine-call-019115
   By QUINT FORGEY
   10/02/2019 08:00 AM EDT Updated: 10/02/2019 09:50 AM EDT

   Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed Wednesday that he listened in to the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, and defended the substance of the conversation now at the heart of congressional Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

   “I was on the phone call,” Pompeo told reporters during a news conference in Rome.

   Pompeo said the call “was in the context of” U.S. foreign policy goals for the Eastern European nation that have been “remarkably consistent,” including countering Russian aggression in the region, bolstering the Ukrainian economy, and “helping the Ukrainians to get graft out and corruption outside” their bureaucracy.

   “It’s what the State Department officials that I’ve had the privilege to lead have been engaged in, and it’s what we will continue to do — even while all this noise is going on,” he said.

   The Wall Street Journal first reported Monday that Pompeo took part in the call.

   The remarks from America’s top diplomat come as he is engaged in a standoff with three House Democratic chairmen who subpoenaed him Friday for materials related to Trump’s efforts to seek a Ukrainian investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

   But Pompeo rebuffed the committee leaders Tuesday, signaling in a letter that he would not comply with their request for documents or interviews with senior State Department officials identified as important players in the Ukraine scandal.

   “I will use all means at my disposal to prevent and expose any attempts to intimidate the dedicated professionals whom I am proud to lead and serve alongside at the Department of State,” Pompeo wrote.

4. Here’s why I don’t read CNN these days — they have to put a partisan spin on everything.

   https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/mike-pompeo-ukraine-call/index.html

   Pompeo’s remarks on Wednesday was the first time the top US diplomat confirmed that he was on the July call between Trump and Zelensky — after previously evading questions on what he knew about the conversation and news reports from Monday that revealed he was on the call.
   During the news conference Wednesday, Pompeo was asked if he heard anything on the call that gave him any concerns or raised a red flag, but he dodged the question.
   …
   The Wall Street Journal first reported — and CNN confirmed — that Pompeo was on the call with Trump and Zelensky, where Trump asked Zelensky for a “favor” — investigate Biden, a 2020 candidate for the Democratic nomination, and his son, Hunter Biden. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

   There was no EVIDENCE of wrong-doing by Judge Kavanaugh, but that isn’t the standard for Republicans.

   https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-launch-real-news-spinoff-site

   After years of publishing distorted headlines, slanted news articles, and heavily biased news coverage, media giant CNN announced Friday that it has decided to launch a spinoff site that focuses on real news comprised of objective facts.

   Dubbed “CNN: Real,” the site is designed to bring the news media empire into the arena of publishing real news, a step away from its roots as a channel that covers entirely fabricated stories and shamelessly spins all news into liberal talking points.

   “We know this is going to get some push-back from our viewer base, but don’t worry: the original CNN site and cable channel are still a large part of our business,” company Vice President Michael Bass said during an announcement on the shift toward real news. “Anytime you want to have your biases confirmed, CNN will be there.”

   “But with CNN: Real, we’re going to try our hand at reporting facts, and doing so in an unbiased manner.”

   Painting the new site as an “experiment,” Bass admitted to reporters that he is not entirely confident the real news angle will resonate with the company’s regular viewership, but CNN executives decided it was worth a shot, saying, “If it doesn’t work out, we can always just go back to focusing all of our energy on making stuff up.”

5. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ive-rethought-this-answer-democratic-senator-backtracks-on-pompeo-ukraine-involvement
   by Tim Pearce, | September 29, 2019 03:49 PM

   Sen. Chris Murphy corrected himself shortly after saying he does not know if Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is involved with Rudy Giuliani’s work for President Trump in Ukraine.
   ..
   “Guiliani has been bragging about his Ukraine work since May. Pompeo didn’t stop him. Pompeo didn’t speak out. Pompeo went on TV last week and pushed new conspiracy theories.”

   “Of course Pompeo was involved,” Murphy concluded.

   Battlespace preparation.

6. Pelosi knows impeachement won’t fly, but she expects Republicans to work with her on other things because they know it too.

   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nancy-pelosis-absurd-suggestion-trump-impeachment-and-bipartisan-cooperation
   by Tom Rogan, | October 02, 2019 12:28 PM

   If you’re trying to impeach a president, you can’t expect that president to seek bipartisan cooperation. Such cooperation requires a baseline of trust. Impeachment proceedings quite obviously destroy that trust or at least signify that it no longer exists.

   That renders absurd House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion Wednesday morning that she wants to find “common ground” with President Trump on gun control, pharmaceutical drugs pricing, and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. As she spoke at a press conference, Pelosi was challenged on how she intends to pursue negotiations with Trump while simultaneously seeking to remove him from office Pelosi seemed shocked by the question. The two issues, she said, said are entirely separate.

   It was a ludicrous comment. Not only are impeachment and cooperation incompatible with Trump’s ego and interests, but Pelosi went out of her way to bring Adam Schiff to her press conference …

   Schiff has spent the past week making up quotes and attributing them to Trump. Whatever you think of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, it is not surprising that the president now views Schiff as his arch-nemesis. That raises the question once again: Why did Pelosi call this press conference alongside Schiff if she truly wants to keep open lines of bipartisan cooperation? Why did she tease him as being “cowardly” and “cruel?”

   Trump has been relatively pleasant in his descriptions of Pelosi. There was potential, small but real, for the two leaders to continue their bipartisan discussions. Not any longer.

   And don’t listen to Pelosi’s or Schiff’s high-minded rhetoric about the founders. As with last Sunday, theirs is another partisan waltz.

   Battlespace preparation: Pelosi will say Trump is the the one obstructing legislative progress because he won’t cooperate with House Democrats.

7. Bolding in the IGIC subquote is Sean’s, the bolding in his text is mine; “instant” in the old sense of “current”; Whistleblower in the new sense of partisan leaker.

   https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/intel-community-admission-of-whistleblower-changes-raises-explosive-new-questions/
   By Sean Davis, OCTOBER 1, 2019

   On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

   The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.
   …
   In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint:

   In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

   The ICIG did not inform the DNI of the existence of the anti-Trump complaint until Aug. 26 and did not inform Congress of the complaint until Sept. 9. On Sept. 13, the DNI informed Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint did not meet the statutory definition of an “urgent concern” and would therefore not be shared with Congress. The complaint was formally declassified by the president for release to the public on Sept. 25.

   This timeline raises significant questions about the rationale for the rule changes by the ICIG, as it would be improbable, except in the case of illegal classified leaks, for the press to have inquired about the anti-Trump complaint in August, when the revisions to the forms and policies were claimed to have been formally made, according to markings on the new whistleblower forms which claim they were revised in August of 2019.
   While the previous forms requiring firsthand evidence show they were approved on May 24, 2018, the new forms do not disclose the specific date of the revision. If the ICIG did not inform the congressional committees of the particular whistleblower complaint until Sept. 9 and did not transmit the letter until Sept. 13, how could any members of the media have inquired back in August about the specific anti-Trump complaint or its relation to the previous requirement for firsthand information in whistleblower complaints?

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>