Dems Hiding "Evidence"

PUBLISHED: 7:53 PM 25 Sep 2019
UPDATED: 7:54 PM 25 Sep 2019

Prosecutor Has “Evidence” Of Dem 2016 Election Collusion, Obama Appointee Blocks Visa

Democrats will rue the day they bowed to the squad and tried to impeach President Trump, new information shows that a Ukrainian prosecutor tried to enter the United States with evidence of 2016 lection interference, but an Obama appointee denied him a visa.

This woman is the key. (Source: Facebook screenshot)

Democrats colluded with the Ukraine in 2016 to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, according to an investigator who has “evidence” of the illegal behavior. But for inscrutable reasons, this man has been refused entry into the U.S.

Where is Justice? And why isn’t the Justice Department more concerned? Is the DOJ too busy trying to cover its own illegal activity to allow real evidence of democrat corruption to be exposed?

John Solomon reported for The Hill concerning the shocking new development that showed interference in the election process to benefit Hillary Clinton.

Combine that with Biden’s actions and it seems all too clear which party is filled with lying criminals.

PJ Media broke down the report:

The officials claim they have evidence of “contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump,” according to Solomon.

Unfortunately, the Trump Justice Department appears to be disinterested in the evidence being offered by the Ukrainians, and it’s not clear why.

Part of the problem, according to a top Ukrainian official, could be that the U.S. embassy in Kiev has been refusing to provide Ukrainian law enforcement officials with visas so they can deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told Solomon.  “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine is Marie Louise Yovanovitch, who was appointed to the post by former President Barack Obama in August 2016.

State Department officials declined to comment on the question of whether they denied or slow-walked visas for Ukrainian officials. “Visa records are confidential under U.S. law; therefore, we cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases,” a department spokesperson told Solomon.

According to Kulyk, a company with ties to prominent Democrats was allegedly involved with a Ukrainian money-laundering operation. Businessmen friendly to the former pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych unlawfully moved large amounts of money out of Ukraine to the United States.

The payments were authorized “for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told Solomon. “These payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company [with ties to Democrats] was involved in these payments.”

Kulyk also told Solomon that Ukrainian authorities have uncovered evidence that during the 2016 election, U.S. officials pressured Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to hide payouts to a certain American Democrat.

“In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of [the American] would not be mentioned,” he said.

In addition to that, according to the report, two Ukrainian officials have admitted in sworn statements that their agency leaked an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as part of their effort to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

DNC operative and Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa was heavily involved in this part of Ukraine‘s efforts to sabotage Trump.

At some point in 2014, Chalupa began researching Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych for another client. In late 2015, she expanded her opposition research to include Trump’s ties to Russia.

Alexandra Chalupa is the DNC operative who illegally coordinated with the embassy of Ukraine and journalists during the 2016 election, reporting back to Hillary Clinton’s hand picked @DNC communications director.

She began accusations of Trump Russian connections in 2015. https://t.co/sa7D0JxGDf

— ?????? ?????????????????? ? (@stranahan) October 2, 2018

In January of 2016, she informed a senior DNC official that she believed there was a Russia connection with the Trump campaign.

Then, in March of 2016, she met with top officials in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington to expose ties between Trump, Manafort, and Russia.

?? ?? ?? CNN reports that DNC Contractor Alexandra Chalupa told DNC operatives that Ukraine offered dirt on the Trump campaign and Chalupa, per @politico, met with Ukrainian diplomats at their DC Embassy where they gave her anti-Manafort docs costing Manafort his job. COLLUSION! pic.twitter.com/HCEx0Ls8TO

— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) March 11, 2019

A few days later, she briefed the DNC’s communication staff. Less than a month later, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff published a story on Yahoo News about Manafort’s business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Alexandra Chalupa was paid $412,000 to work with Ukrainian officials to push dirt about President-elect Trump to journalists in a bid to help Hillary Rodham Clinton win, according to a new report.https://t.co/JnznVIJdIz

— Lawyerforlaws (@lawyer4laws) April 3, 2019

In July of 2017, Senator Charles Grassley (D-Iowa), then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressing concern about Chalupa’s actions.

“Chalupa’s actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials,” Grassley wrote.

Aside from the apparent evidence of collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian government, Chalupa’s actions implicate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Chalupa reportedly worked directly with Ukrainian government officials to benefit Ukraine, lobbying Congress on behalf of Ukraine, and worked to undermine the Trump campaign on behalf of Ukraine and the Clinton campaign.

Additional evidence the Ukrainians claim they have, according to Solomon:

Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukraine relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;

Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;

Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. Embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;

Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.

Ukrainian officials reportedly don’t want to hand their evidence to FBI agents working in Ukraine because they don’t trust them. “It is no secret in Ukrainian political circles that the NABU was created with American help and tried to exert influence during the U.S. presidential election,” Kulyk said.

Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Solomon that he has enough evidence — particularly regarding the Biden family’s payouts — to warrant a meeting with U.S. Attorney General William Barr. “I’m looking forward to meeting with the attorney general of the United States in order to start and facilitate our joint investigation regarding the appropriation of another $7 billion in U.S. dollars with Ukrainian legal origin,” Lutsenko said.

Solomon further explained how democrats coordinated the sabotage of Trump:

The DNC’s embassy contacts add a new dimension, though. Chalupa discussed in the 2017 Politico article about her efforts to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort, including at the Ukrainian Embassy.

Federal Election Commission records show Chalupa’s firm, Chalupa & Associates, was paid $71,918 by the DNC during the 2016 election cycle.

Exactly how the Ukrainian Embassy responded to Chalupa’s inquiries remains in dispute.

Chaly’s statement says the embassy rebuffed her requests for information: “No documents related to Trump campaign or any individuals involved in the campaign have been passed to Ms. Chalupa or the DNC neither from the Embassy nor via the Embassy. No documents exchange was even discussed.”

But Andrii Telizhenko, a former political officer who worked under Chaly from December 2015 through June 2016, told me he was instructed by the ambassador and his top deputy to meet with Chalupa in March 2016 and to gather whatever dirt Ukraine had in its government files about Trump and Manafort.

Telizhenko said that when he was told by the embassy to arrange the meeting, both Chaly and the ambassador’s top deputy identified Chalupa “as someone working for the DNC and trying to get Clinton elected.”

Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in stark terms what she hoped the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to his account.

“She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election,” he recalled.

After the meeting, Telizhenko said he became concerned about the legality of using his country’s assets to help an American political party win a U.S. election. But he proceeded with his assignment.

Telizhenko said that as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS was nosing around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for the Democrats.

As a former aide inside the general prosecutor’s office in Kiev, Telizhenko used contacts with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information connecting Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization’s real estate deals overseas, including a tower in Toronto.

Telizhenko said he did not want to provide the intelligence he collected directly to Chalupa and instead handed the materials to Chaly: “I told him what we were doing was illegal, that it was unethical doing this as diplomats.” He said the ambassador told him he would handle the matter and had opened a second channel back in Ukraine to continue finding dirt on Trump.

Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist researching Manafort’s ties to Ukraine.

About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016, he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy’s contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general’s office and officials in the Poroshenko administration: “Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been approved at the highest levels.”

Telizhenko said he never was able to confirm whether the information he collected for Chalupa was delivered to her, the DNC or the Clinton campaign.

Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to Russia.

In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some of the seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a book making a case for Russian collusion.

“A lot more coming down the pipe,” Chalupa wrote a top DNC official on May 3, 2016, recounting her effort to educate Ukrainian journalists and Isikoff about Manafort.

Then she added, “More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.”

Less than a month later, the “black ledger” identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign chairman and eventually to face criminal prosecution for improper foreign lobbying.

DNC officials have suggested in the past that Chalupa’s efforts were personal, not officially on behalf of the DNC. But Chalupa’s May 2016 email clearly informed a senior DNC official that she was “digging into Manafort” and she suspected someone was trying to hack into her email account.

Chaly over the years has tried to portray his role as Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington as one of neutrality during the 2016 election. But in August 2016 he raised eyebrows in some diplomatic circles when he wrote an op-ed for The Hill skewering Trump for some of his comments on Russia. “Trump’s comments send wrong message to world,” Chaly’s article blared in the headline.

In his statement to me, Chaly said he wrote the op-ed because he had been solicited for his views by The Hill’s opinion team.

Chaly’s office also acknowledged that a month after the op-ed, President Poroshenko met with then-candidate Clinton during a stop in New York. The office said the ambassador requested a similar meeting with Trump but it didn’t get organized.

Though Chaly and Telizhenko disagree on what Ukraine did after it got Chalupa’s request, they confirm that a paid contractor of the DNC solicited their government’s help to find dirt on Trump that could sway the 2016 election.

For a Democratic Party that spent more than two years building the now disproven theory that Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, the tale of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington feels just like a speeding political boomerang.