Do vitamins and supplements really work? Get your questions answered by leading brain health experts.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
272
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

272 Views
Message 1 of 8
Exactly Olderscout. The fact that it was ok to "work" with an adversary to get Trump elected, sure tells you a lot about the Trump party today, doesn't it? All they care about is winning and power, and NOTHING else. It shows.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
272
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
283
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

283 Views
Message 2 of 8

Mr. Nadler, please add this to your list of places to look for "The Truth"

 

Intervention in the U.S. elections and the list of ‘untouchables’: rebutting Prosecutor General’s interview for The Hill

On March 20, 2019, Prosecutor General Lutsenko in an interview for American The Hill voiced some loud and groundless accusations regarding the director of newly-established anticorruption investigative agency NABU Artem Sytnyk and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Please, see the rebuttal and explanations below.

 

Sytnyk

Though back in May 2018 the Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko himself publicly boasted that he assisted Mueller’s probe,

in March 2019, Lutsenko changed his mind and decided that Sytnyk intervened in the 2016 U.S. elections in support of Democrats. Lutsenko announced that Prosecutor General’s Office triggered a criminal proceeding into the issue.

He builds up his allegations against Sytnyk on very dubious grounds:

 

the administrative court decision in a lawsuit by Boryslav Rozenblat, Member of Parliament (who is a suspect in NABU criminal investigation) against NABU director and an MP. This decision is doubtful as the court:

 

  • went beyond its competence to make decisions on public-law disputes only;
  • went beyond the territorial jurisdiction and did not comply with the condition that the court can make the decision upon an appeal of a person whose rights were violated;
  • failed to explain a cause-effect relationship and how the court could assess the intervention in the elections of other state without sending a single legal request there.

Moreover, the ruling is not enacted, as the appeals trial recently started in the case.

 

the administrative court decision in a lawsuit by Boryslav Rozenblat, Member of Parliament (who is a suspect in NABU criminal investigation) against NABU director and an MP. This decision is doubtful as the court:

  • went beyond its competence to make decisions on public-law disputes only;
  • went beyond the territorial jurisdiction and did not comply with the condition that the court can make the decision upon an appeal of a person whose rights were violated;
  • failed to explain a cause-effect relationship and how the court could assess the intervention in the elections of other state without sending a single legal request there.

audiotape, which Lutsenko received from that same MP Rozenblat. It cannot be used as evidence in the criminal case as according to Ukrainian legislation, a recording could be considered as proof only if it was wiretapped by the law enforcement agency in compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code. This recording is low quality and of unclear origin.

 

Nevertheless, lack of legal proofs of Sytnyk’s alleged crime did not prevent Lutsenko from going on air on American TV channel with this sensational accusation.  


Ambassador Yovanovitch

Lutsenko builds up his accusations against the Ambassador on no less notorious grounds.

 

He stated that during their first meeting, Madam Ambassador gave him a “no prosecute” list. According to Lutsenko, the conversation with her regarded the criminal proceeding into alleged embezzlement of U.S. technical assistance of 4 million USD. However, as a proof of Yovanovitch’s ‘guilt’, the journalists who interviewed Lutsenko, published a letter of April 2016, signed on behalf of her predecessor, the then U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.

 

The criminal case Lutsenko referred to was opened by the PGO on March 16, 2016 during the times redecessor Viktor Shokin. In May 2016, Lutsenko was appointed to the office of the Prosecutor General, personally stated that the criminal case was ‘stupid’ and closed it on May 30, 2016.

 

In late August, 2016, Ambassador Yovanovitch arrived in Ukraine and handed her credential letters to the President. Therefore, Lutsenko’s statement cannot be true as his first conversation with Madam Ambassador could have happened not earlier than three months after the criminal case had already been closed for good.

 

Please, kindly see more detailed rebuttal of Lutsenko’s accusations in the table below:

https://antac.org.ua/en/publications/intervention-in-the-u-s-elections-and-the-list-of-untouchables-...

 

Pretty sure Mr. Nadler's expertise is not needed.  Unless it happens that Lutsenko's effort to raise hell in US politics with fake-news is a job he's undertaken for....some reward or other.  But then Ukraine authorities would first deal with him as they are now doing anyway.

Sara Carter is an adolescent gossip monger.  I know she's pretty but geesh, get a grip.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
283
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
286
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

286 Views
Message 3 of 8

The notion that Russia would want to help the Democratic Party when they have thier bought and paid for Toady in the WhiteHouse beggers the imagination.

 

Which Democrats owe Russia $650,000,000 that they cannot repay?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
286
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
287
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

287 Views
Message 4 of 8

We'll not know the extent of lil donny's conspiracy with Russia until the entire Mueller report is released. The fact donny was not indicted is a matter of DOJ policy, not on the evidence of criminal behavior by him or his family.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
287
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

298 Views
Message 5 of 8

During the 2016 U.S. presidential race Ukrainian prosecutors said they were stymied by then-President Obama’s appointed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from pursing investigations into the activities of a nonprofit known as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), according to John Solomon with The Hill.

 

Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko, who is considered a hero in the West for spending two years as a political prisoner for fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine , told Solomon that he was invited to meet new U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. He was appointed to this position in 2016 and it was then that he spoke to Yovanovitch, he said.

 

He said they, “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” According to Yovanovitch, it included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament. Those people “supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting,” according to Solomon, who spoke to a source.

 

Ukrainian law enforcement was probing a group that was co-funded by the Obama administration, as well as billionaire donor George Soros. Further, according to Solomon the group was allegedly collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities in Ukraine.

 

BY:  Sara Carter

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

 

Mr. Nadler, please add this to your list of places to look for "The Truth"...

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
298
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
318
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

318 Views
Message 6 of 8

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.

 

The "top law enforcement official" could very well have been protecting dt from having screwed up by allowing a criminal into his campaign.  Either way Manafort the Witch is serving his prison term(s) and in hindsight I would imagine dt is thankful the criminal didn't hang around any longer than he did.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
318
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
392
Views

Re: As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

392 Views
Message 7 of 8

jimc91:   After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats.

 

 

The top investigator is to be Inspector Clouseau aided by Inspector Gadget with the Keystone Kops to do the legwork. This should be entertaining.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
392
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
401
Views
7
Replies

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

401 Views
Message 8 of 8

After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats.

 

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.

 

The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,” Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration’s U.S. Embassy in Kiev at the time.  

 

“Today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information,” Lutsenko told me.

 

Lutsenko, before becoming prosecutor general, was a major activist against Russia’s influence in his country during the tenure of Moscow-allied former President Viktor Yanukovych. He became chief prosecutor in 2016 as part of anti-corruption reforms instituted by current President Petro Poroshenko, an ally of the U.S. and Western countries.  

 

Unlike the breathless start to the Russia collusion allegations — in which politicians and news media alike declared a Watergate-sized crisis before the evidence was fully investigated — the Ukraine revelations deserve to be investigated before being accepted.

 

After all, Ukraine is dogged by rampant corruption. It is a frequent target of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dirty tricks. And it is a country that, just last year, faked a journalist's death for one day, reportedly to thwart an assassination plot.

 

But the chief prosecutor, a member of parliament and a court seemingly have enough weight to warrant serious scrutiny of their allegations and an analysis of the audio tape. 

 

Furthermore, the mystery of how the Manafort black ledger files got leaked to American media has never been solved. They surfaced two years after the FBI investigated Manafort over his Ukraine business activities but declined to move forward in 2014 for lack of evidence.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton...

 

 

 

 

We now have strong evidence that retired British spy Christopher Steele began his quest in what ultimately became the infamous Russia collusion dossier with a series of conversations with top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr between December 2015 and February 2016 about securing evidence against Manafort.

We know the FBI set up shop in the U.S. embassy in Kiev to assist its Ukraine–Manafort inquiry — a common practice on foreign-based probes — while using Steele as an informant at the start of its Russia probe. And we know Clinton’s campaign was using a law firm to pay an opposition research firm for Steele’s work in an effort to stop Trump from winning the presidency, at the same time Steele was aiding the FBI. 

Those intersections, coupled with the new allegations by Ukraine’s top prosecutor, are reason enough to warrant a serious, thorough investigation.

If Ukraine law enforcement figures who worked frequently with the U.S. Embassy did leak the Manafort documents in an effort to influence the American election for Clinton, the public deserves to know who knew what, and when.

Lutsenko’s interview with Hill.TV raises another troubling dynamic: The U.S. Embassy and the chief Ukrainian prosecutor, who America entrusts with fighting corruption inside an allied country, currently have a dysfunctional relationship.

In our interview, Lutsenko accused the Obama-era U.S. Embassy in 2016 of interfering in his ability to prosecute corruption cases, saying the U.S. ambassador gave him a list of defendants that he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.

Lutsenko provided me with a letter from the embassy, supporting part of his story by showing that a U.S. official did in fact ask him to stand down on the misappropriation-of-funds case. “We are gravely concerned about this investigation for which we see no basis,” an embassy official named George Kent wrote to the prosecutor’s office. 

 

The State Department on Wednesday issued a statement declaring that it no longer financially supports Lutsenko’s office in its anti-corruption mission and considers his allegation about the do-not-prosecute list “an outright fabrication.”

My reporting, however, indicates Lutsenko isn’t the only person complaining about the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. 

Last year, when he served as House Rules Committee chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wrote a private letter asking Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to recall the current U.S. ambassador, alleging that she made disparaging statements about President Trump.

 

The ambassador “has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration in a way that might call for the expulsion” of America’s top diplomat in Ukraine, Sessions wrote.

Such dysfunction does not benefit either country, especially when Russia is lurking around the corner, hoping to regain its influence in the former Soviet republic.  

Investigating what's going on in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and whether elements in Ukraine tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election to help Clinton, are essential steps to rebooting a key relationship.

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
401
Views
7
Replies