Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the election, the media and the left have been trying to pin her loss on the interference of foreign governments.
And now explosive proof has emerged that one particular country tried to push its thumb on the scale in favor of one particular candidate.
But it wasn’t the country you would have expected – and who they interfered on behalf of will shock you.
It was the government of Ukraine that meddled in the American election and did it to help Hillary Clinton.
They acted out of self interest because they believed Donald Trump’s platform of reorienting America’s relationship with Russia would pose danger to their nation.
But does it?
And does it justify their interference to elect Hillary Clinton?
It’s been revealed that Ukrainian officials funneled damaging documents to the Clinton campaign, claiming they were investigating Trump campaign officials for corruption, and helped with the opposition research in effort to sabotage Trump’s chances of victory.
“A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.”
When it became apparent Trump would be the GOP nominee, Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa – whose parents were Ukrainian immigrants and who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee – began digging into Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort and his ties to the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine.
Her work led her to meetings with Ukrainian embassy officials where they traded information and became heavily involved in the Democrats anti-Trump efforts.
Politico also reports:
“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.”
In addition to peddling information to the Clinton campaign, the Ukrainian government released a ledger purportedly showing a $12.7 million dollar cash payment from a pro-Russian Party in Ukraine to Paul Manafort.
The New York Times reported Manafort was under corruption investigation by the Ukrainian government.
Reports in the American media surfaced that the FBI had also targeted Manafort.
These reports proved so damaging, Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign in mid August.
Politico reports that Manafort stated he was never contacted by the Ukrainian government investigators nor the FBI:
“Manafort denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, and said that he had never been contacted about the ledger by Ukrainian or American investigators, later telling POLITICO “I was just caught in the crossfire.”
And Politico also reports that now that the election is over – and Trump was victorious – the Ukrainian government is backing off its investigation into Manafort with some even claiming the ledger’s showing Manafort’s under-the-table payments were forged:
“And, almost immediately after Trump’s stunning victory over Clinton, questions began mounting about the investigations into the ledgers — and the ledgers themselves.
An official with the anti-corruption bureau told a Ukrainian newspaper, “Mr. Manafort does not have a role in this case.”
And, while the anti-corruption bureau told Politico late last month that a “general investigation [is] still ongoing” of the ledger, it said Manafort is not a target of the investigation. “As he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law couldn’t investigate him personally,” the bureau said in a statement.
Some Poroshenko critics have gone further, suggesting that the bureau is backing away from investigating because the ledgers might have been doctored or even forged.
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country’s head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that “only one part of the black ledger appeared.” He asked, “Where is the handwriting analysis?” and said it was “crazy” to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington with Trump allies, and said, “of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign.”
So far, no proof has emerged that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign despite the many insinuations from members of the media.
There is – however – definitive proof the Ukrainian government worked hard with the Democrats and the Clinton campaign to undermine our election by trying to tip it to Hillary Clinton.