Many of my friends wonder why I and many of my fellow Center-Right friends appear to support Trump. Let’s be clear: It’s not that we like the guy (in many cases), but instead our position is based on two key things: Yes, his policies are working. Economically, militarily, and from a foreign policy / trade perspective, his actions are working. But second, we are appalled, alarmed, and even outraged at the continuous attempts to discredit, dismantle, obstruct, and ultimately remove him by what are appearing to be more and more power-hungry people that he labeled “The Swamp”. So, I thought, if the Democrats in Washington are calling all of the claims of “deep state” and “swamp” just right-wing rhetoric, then it should be easily debunkable, right? After all, the media they sermonize to on a regular basis seems to agree, so it must be true, right?
Side note: I see a sharp difference between these democrats and my many, many democrat friends. I see clear, distinct, and even reassuring differences in my friends and their points of view, versus those in the so-called “swamp”.
But let’s get back to the point for today, and now enter stage left: The Impeachment activities. In these hearings, over and over again, we heard 2 key themes: First, Rudy Giuliani is a bad, bad guy sneaking around the Ukraine causing problems as Trump’s henchman to get dirt on Biden. And then we also heard that “US Intelligence has repeatedly reported that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election”. A few weeks, ago I decided to start investigating this myself, to again find multiple, corroborating resources, to find truth in all of this. Here we go. And along the way – I found a lot more not related to collusion; but that’ll be in the next post.
Let’s start with Giuliani. Democrats and their 12 public witnesses (of the 17 they deposed in the capital basement in closed door sessions) talked over and over about Giuliani running around Ukraine, repeatedly, in secret, doing Trump’s bidding against Biden and going clearly and repeatedly against US foreign policy objectives. They even accused him of obstructing direct State Department activities in the region. What first caught my eye was that they provided no direct evidence – at all – of this. Recently Giuliani went on camera, live, and provided evidence that he had not been in Ukraine for over 2 years (until a very recent trip – AFTER the impeachment hearing started). Biden wasn’t even a candidate 2+ years ago. His evidence in records were backed up by not only border records for Ukraine, but also for entry/exit records by the US Customs and Border Patrol. Basically, Schiff’s claims, and those of his witnesses, were lies. Proven by personal records and records from 2 governments. This wasn’t hard to find. So why did the Big 5 (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS) bury it? No truth test whatsoever. But why was Giuliani there? It is true that he was Trump’s attorney, gathering evidence, in response to the democrat-led Mueller investigation into collusion.
But that brings us to the Mueller investigation into collusion. Giuliani was there over 2 years ago gathering evidence to protect his client, Trump, and this is not refuted. But let’s look at the collusion premise that Trump was being investigated for; this is where it gets interesting and even angering in that the hatred of Trump clouds judgement of where wrong-doing may, in fact, be rampant. Recall that we spent over $33M on the Mueller investigation, opened based on an unconfirmed, unreliable document created by Christopher Steele for the DNC (Democrat National Committee). Horowitz found all kinds of issues with how that was handled, and several are now being looked at from a legal referral perspective. And by the way, no collusion was found by Mueller after over 2 years of trying to find it. But let’s not focus on that. Let’s instead focus on what the collusion complaint was all about. Collusion, in this context, is clearly defined as “enlisting the aid of a foreign government to interfere with (and influence the outcome of) an American election”. Democrats yelled from the rooftops that Trump did this with Russia. Yet in the end, no proof was found, the document the investigation was based on was found to be full of lies and unconfirmed bar conversations, and even the FBI was found to have physically altered exculpatory evidence to continue to drive the narrative for as long as possible.
And you wonder why republicans are angry?
So, what did Giuliani find in Ukraine? This is where it gets really interesting. I first watched hours of evidence that is now available online, and then when out to separately confirm what I had heard. Remember the people Republicans wanted to call to the impeachment hearings but were blocked by Schiff? Enter Alexandra Chalupa. She was a Clinton White House employee, who was employed as a consultant by the DNC in 2016 when candidate Trump started rising in the polls. She was sent to Ukraine to get harmful information on Trump, Trump Jr, and Paul Manafort (we call this dirt). Emails from her, most via Wikileaks, to her handler, Luis Miranda (Comms Director, DNC), showed her in Ukraine promising dirt was coming soon. By the way, after Wikileaks exposed these emails, Miranda and a slew of other DNC execs resigned. The Big 5 ignored this.
Getting back to the dirt – what did Chalupa find? Apparently, nothing, however while she was there in Ukraine a “black ledger” mysteriously showed up on the doorstep of a Ukraine Parliament member one morning. It was supposedly able to link lots of illegal money going to lots of nefarious people, like Paul Manafort, then campaign manager for Trump. That Parliament member (Andrii Artemenko) has gone on camera now, under oath, to say that it was obviously a copy, it was not an original, and while it was reported to have come from the “Party of Regions” (pro-Russia), there was no indication that it was from them. But, it showed money going to Paul Manafort and, among others, Mikaela Okhendovsky (the then-head of the Federal Election Commission for Ukraine). It even had their alleged signatures next to payments (this is almost laughable – who signs for payoffs?). But this was in 2016. What has also been revealed is that the Party of Regions was no longer operating after 2014. In fact, their headquarters was subject to an arson attack in 2014 that destroyed all their records, but a few pages of this ledger mysteriously supposedly survived, without even a burn mark, and two years later copies appeared on the doorstep of Artemenko. Did I mention that the ledger also, within 24 hours, appeared in the hands of Chalupa’s friend, Michael Isikoff and the New York Times (NYT), who broke the story and appeared all over the networks in the US? Then…THEN… when Artemenko started to publicly question its authenticity, the NYT ran a story that he was the Putin-Trump back-channel communications man. He’s never met either of them. This has now been thoroughly, definitively refuted.
It gets even better – Okhendovsky was shown in the ledger to have received roughly $16,000 in several payments. He has produced numerous records, and investigations have backed it up, that he never received anything and had no connections to any money. The media even published a picture of a mansion that he supposedly lived in, using the spoils of his corruption. This was also proven to be a lie, and he was paid a decent settlement by that media for publishing lies.
None of this has made it to the media. None.
And on Manafort – no money trail alleged within the ledger was found to be nefarious. What he plead guilty to was “not registering as a foreign agent” with the State Department and resultingly not paying taxes on monies made while overseas. By the way – the FBI investigated him and closed it with no findings 2 years earlier; it wasn’t until the mysterious copy of the black ledger showed up that the FBI went back after him, based on that. Now they are in court looking at all of this again – as new facts of wrong-doing within the FBI are being exposed by new Inspector Generals.
Circling back to collusion: It is actually crystal-clear that Chalupa, paid by the DNC (which was widely reported as near bankrupt in the 2016 election and was then financially propped-up by the Clinton campaign), was sent to Ukraine to get dirt from their government on candidate Trump. All to influence the election. The exact same thing Trump was accused of, and found to not have done. But nobody gives this any airtime in the Big 5 world. And the Washington democrats have said it’s a conspiracy theory. When does something that is factually proven – and not just once – no longer be labeled as conspiracy?
More to come – it gets WAY better… Stay tuned.
