Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., departs the Capitol en route to a speaking event in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. Pelosi will meet with her caucus later as more House Democrats are urging an impeachment inquiry amid reports that President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Some of us are old enough to remember the Looney Tunes classic series, “Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner.” In every episode, Wile E. Coyote has a new idea for how he will finally catch Roadrunner, but the bird is simply too fast and the Coyote never succeeds. Most of the time, the plan backfires and leaves the Coyote wounded and angry. But that doesn’t stop him from trying again.

This morning, the whistleblower’s complaint was released. Given that the transcript of the actual conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed quite benign, the seriousness of the allegations and the tone of the complaint came as a surprise. Our whistleblower has managed to extract an extraordinary amount of material from a pretty mild phone call.

To me, the past week feels eerily similar to the beginning of the Russian collusion investigation. The allegations in the whistleblower’s complaint  are difficult to believe. Instead of Russian collusion, it’s become Ukrainian collusion. And an anonymous whistleblower complaint has replaced the Steele dossier.

The whistleblower wrote that “over the course of four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts.” Okay, so the whistleblower submitted his complaint on August 12th and had worked on it for four months.

That would take us back to the first half of April.

On April 1st, The Hill’s John Solomon broke the story about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings. He wrote:

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

Until this time, no one had tied Joe Biden’s boast about threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the Ukrainian President fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, to his son’s involvement with Burisma.

Note: Solomon appeared on “Hannity” last night and said he has obtained 450 pages of documents from “the State Department and Hunter Biden’s “legal team” demonstrating that the attorneys were working to stop an investigation launched by then-Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin into principals of Burisma.” He will present his story tonight on “Hannity.”

In March, Solomon interviewed Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin, and came away with extraordinary stories of corruption within the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, originating from the State Department.

In April 2016, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s office was investigating a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC). This organization was co-founded by the Obama administration and George Soros. The concern was that $4.4 million the U.S. had sent to help fight corruption in Ukraine had been improperly diverted.

Shortly before Lutsenko took office, then-U.S. Embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Prosecutor General’s office asking them to end the investigation. Kent made it clear that “U.S. officials had no concerns about how the U.S. aid had been spent.”

Soon after taking office, Lutsenko was summoned to the U.S. Embassy to meet the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. According to Lutsenko, Yovanovitch handed him “a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The embassy, of course, responded that the claim was a fabrication and a sign that corruption is alive and well inside Ukraine. (I posted about this story here.) Solomon wrote:

But Kent’s letter unequivocally shows the embassy did press Ukrainian prosecutors to back off what normally would be considered an internal law enforcement matter inside a sovereign country. And more than a half-dozen U.S. and Ukrainian sources confirmed to me the AntAC case wasn’t the only one in which American officials exerted pressure on Ukrainian investigators in 2016.

When I asked State to explain the letter and inclusion of the Soros-connected names during the meeting, it demurred. “As a general rule, we don’t read out private diplomatic meetings,” it responded. “Ambassador Yovanovitch represents the President of the United States in Ukraine, and America stands behind her and her statements.”

Second, the AntAC anecdote highlights a little-known fact that the pursuit of foreign corruption has resulted in an unusual alliance between the U.S. government and a political mega-donor.

If this account is correct, the Obama administration pressured a foreign government to drop an investigation into an organization they had co-founded along with activist George Soros. They were interested in preventing American taxpayers from learning how their tax dollars were being spent as well as concealing their collaboration with Soros. But, above all, they were each doing their part to insure that Hillary Clinton won the presidency.

The most serious corruption of all involved pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians and the DNC. Fox News contributor and author Dan Bongino and Solomon stand out for their ability to recognize the coordination between corrupt pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians and the DNC. Although Clinton lost the election, the effects of their interference can still be felt today. Especially for Paul Manafort.

To gain a better understanding of what happened, it’s helpful to know the backstory. No one does a better job of this than Bongino in his book “Spygate,” which was published in the late fall of 2018. He lays out the story of the real election interference that took place in 2016.

This story starts with the targeting of Paul Manafort by a pro-Western Ukrainian lawyer and activist named Alexandra Chalupa. This woman had worked as a consultant for the DNC and for Democratic politicians including several Clinton campaign officials. Between 2004 and 2016, she had earned $412,000 from the DNC, but left to focus on researching or rather “destroying” Manafort. Chalupa had “watched him since 2014.”

According to Bongino:

The moment Manafort joined the Trump team, Chalupa alerted the DNC of the “threat” of Russian influence. Chalupa’s sister, Andrea, spread the word on a Ukrainian television show calling Manafort’s hiring a “huge deal” and describing him as the “puppet master of some of the most vile dictators around the world.” His hiring, she said sent a “very, very, very, very, very serious warning bell going off.” This fear was rooted in the belief that Manafort was the mastermind behind Yanukovych’s corruption.

Chalupa was a woman on a mission. Determined to broadcast her message to the world, she began by enlisting the help of journalists. Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff came on board and began writing a series of articles which portrayed both Manafort and the Trump campaign in a rather nefarious light. Her strategy was quite effective.

Chalupa’s smear campaign involved journalists and diplomats as well as contacts inside the DNC. She obviously had many contacts from her years in Washington and her message was easy to sell.

Bongino reported on the infamous black ledger and the role played by pro-Hillary Clinton Ukrainians in Paul Manafort’s downfall.

Politico writers Kenneth Vogel and David Stern interviewed Alexandra Chalupa for their January 2017 article. She told them she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. She also said that Ukrainian government officials gave her information to pass along to the DNC. She later denied both of these statements.

Recall that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had previously bailed out the DNC financially and essentially controlled it.

The scope of the Democrat’s interference in the 2016 was breathtaking and beyond the scope of this post. I wrote in detail about this here.

Another piece of the puzzle involves Nellie Ohr who worked for Fusion GPS along with Christopher Steele. During her testimony last summer, she told lawmakers that a major source of the information she provided to the FBI was a Ukrainian official.

Suffice it to say that, by the spring of 2019, a pretty clear picture of the Democrats’ collusion with Ukrainians to tip the election to Clinton had formed.

The Mueller report hadn’t produced the result Democrats had anticipated. William Barr had appointed John Durham to open an investigation into the origins of the bogus Russian collusion probe. And, at the time, it was thought that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on alleged FISA abuse by the FBI, would be released imminently.

Hence, ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Ukrainian Collusion Scandal.

Could this be the Democrat’s newest plan to finally catch that damn bird, once and for all?