Where is this Collusion Investigate: Ukrainian Government Officials tried to Help Hillary Clinton and Undermine Donald Trump

BIAS MEDIA AND WITCH HUNT … WHERE IS INVESTIGATION THAT HILLARY CLINTON COLLUDED WITH UKRAINIAN’S?

As the bias and liberal media conducts a Russian witch hunt on President Donald Trump, fueled by illegal leaks, weak-kneed establishment Republicans and a faction of Never-Trumper individuals, they all seem to have completed neglected the actual collusion that took place between Hillary Clinton and the Ukrainian government. That is correct, collusion. I would ask, what is the difference? Why is it Trump collusion when investigations have gone on for months and nothing has been found and when Hillary actually does collude, mum is the word?  From the Politico, hardly alt-right news, comes the story of collusion between Ukrainian government officials who tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Donald Trump. Imagine that? So where is the investigations? Oh, that’s right, this does not fit the bias media’s liberal agenda and talking points to get Trump and overthrow a duly elected president. Instead, we go after Trump and his people for using Russian dressing on their salad, for drinking white or black Russians and eating chicken Kiev.

Forget the fact that Hillary Clinton had connections with Russia … why did Bill Clinton get paid  $500,000 for a speech in Russia? Why did Secretary Hillary Clinton allow sale of United States uranium resources to Russia? Use your heads folks, you are being played by the MSM, Democrats, the LEFT and loser establishment Republicans who care more about power than this country and its people.

collusion3

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

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.

Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.

Hillary Collusion … What difference does it make, the MSM will never investigate it

Hillary_Clinton2

Folks, you really need to read this Politico piece, it is very informative an the MSM will never discuss it.

The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.

In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

UPDATE I: With Hillary Clinton, there was no intent to collude, there was actual collusion. So where is the outrage?

Peter Hasson of The Daily Caller reminded everyone of a Politico report detailing the coordination between the two: Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative Alexandra Chalupa met with Ukrainian government officials for dirt on Paul Manafort, who at the time was rumored to replace Corey Lewandowski as Donald Trump’s campaign manager.

Once Manafort officially became Lewandowski’s replacement, Chalupa shared her opposition research on Manafort with the DNC, and they were ecstatic about it.

The Ukrainian government denied the allegations made in the Politico report, but their denial was undercut by former Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko admitting “that he was assigned to work with Chalupa” and that “they were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa.”

The DNC simply claimed that Chalupa’s coordination with the Ukrainian government were her actions alone.

Former FBI Director James Comey’s Second Meeting with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch was a Frosty Exchange Where He Confronted Her About Political Interference

THIS IS THE SCANDAL THAT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION

As reported at Circa, former FBI director James Comey told members of Congress in closed-door meetings that he confronted former Attorney General Loretta Lynch over her alleged interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.According to reports, the meeting got very tense when Comey confronted Lynch about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed. Comey told lawmakers that during the meeting, he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton. WOW!!! Folks, this would be obstruction of justice. According to the account, Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office.” It had been previously known that Comey testified that Lynch told him to call the FBI criminal investigation a “matter.”

This is all starting to make sense as the dots are connected and who really committed the real collusion and crimes

comey-lynch-hillary

Ex-FBI Director James Comey has privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly briefed on the matter.

During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, Comey alluded to the second exchange after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch, where she ordered him not to refer to the criminal probe of Clinton’ handling of classified emails not as an “investigation” but rather as a “matter.”  He suggested it smacked of political spin rather than the way professional law enforcement officers talk.

“That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning,” Comey testified.

Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing.

During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.

Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.

Liberal Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein of California has actually called for an investigation into this situation. This is unraveling very fast for Democrats.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Says on CNN’s State of the Union … Calls for Investigation into Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions After Comey Testimony in Regards to the Clinton Email Scandal

Via RedState, in a interview on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that there should be an investigation into former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions that came out during former FBI directors testimony last Thursday to the Senate. Comey testified that Lynch improperly injected politics into the investigation. Comey was told to call the FBI criminal investigation a matter.  However, in that case, Comey had no issue doing exactly what the AG told him to do and provided cover for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Although now he claims it gave him a queasy feeling.

It’s not every day the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee says a political appointee of the same party needs to be investigated. But that’s exactly what Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) said on Sunday’s State of the Union on CNN of former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions in regards to the Clinton email scandal.

“I think we need to know more about that,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on Sunday’s episode of State of the Union. “And there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”

Feinstein’s comment comes in the wake of fired F.B.I. Director James Comey’s testimony last week in which he claimed Lynch — who herself created a firestorm when she made a visit to allegedly chitchat with Bill Clinton on the tarmac during the 2016 campaign — told him to call the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of email as Secretary of State a “matter” rather than an “investigation.”

James Comey Testifies that Obama AG Loretta Lynch Ordered Him to Downplay Hillary Clinton’s ‘Criminal Investigation’ and Call it a “MATTER” (VIDEO)

HOW IS THIS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? BECAUSE IT WAS ASKED FOR BY AN OBAMA OFFICIAL FOR HILLARY CLINTON … CALL IT A MATTER.

UNREAL!!! We learned during yesterday’s testimony from former FBI Director James Comey that, not only were the news media stories regarding Russia and President Donald Trump false, but also that former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered him to downplay the Hillary Clinton FBI criminal investigation, and “call it a matter.” Lynch did not hope he would do this, she ordered him to do so.

James Comey appeared to work for the Federal Bureau of Matters. However, when Comey was given this directive, that was completely inappropriate, a conflict of interest and yes, a form of obstruction of justice, he only felt queasy. REALLY? In essence, he was running cover for Hillary’s campaign so that she could say, she was not under criminal investigation. But of course Comey is not partisan.

Transcript – NY Times:

LANKFORD: OK. OK. You had mentioned before about some news stories and news accounts, but, without having to go into all the names and the specific times and to be able dip into all that, have there been news accounts about the Russia investigation, about collusion, about this whole event or accusations that, as you read the story, you were stunned about how wrong they got the facts

COMEY: Yes. There have been many, many stories purportedly based on classified information about — well, about lots of stuff, but especially about Russia, that are just dead wrong.

LANKFORD: I was interested in your comment that you made, as well, that the president said to you, if there were some satellite associates of his that did something wrong, it would be good to find that out.

That — the president seemed to talk to you specifically on March the 30th and say, I’m frustrated that the word is not getting out that I’m not under investigation, but if there are people that are in my circle that are, let’s finish the investigation. Is that how you took it, as well?

COMEY: Yes, sir. Yes.

LANKFORD: And then you made a comment earlier about the attorney general — previous attorney general — asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails, saying that you’d been asked not to call it an “investigation” anymore, but to call it a “matter.”

And you had said that confused you. Can you give us additional details on that?

COMEY: Well, it concerned me, because we were at the point where we had refused to confirm the existence, as we typically do, of an investigation, for months, and it was getting to a place where that looked silly, because the campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work.

The — the Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms — security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?

And she said, yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter. And I said, why would I do that? And she said, just call it a matter.

And, again, you look back in hindsight, you think should I have resisted harder? I just said, all right, it isn’t worth — this isn’t a hill worth dying on and so I just said, OK, the press is going to completely ignore it. And that’s what happened.

When I said, we have opened a matter, they all reported the FBI has an investigation open. And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about FBI’s work and that’s concerning.

LANKFORD: It gave the impression that the campaign was somehow using the same language as the FBI, because you were handed the campaign language and told to be able (ph) to use the campaign language…

(CROSSTALK)

COMEY: Yeah — and — and again, I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.

We had a criminal investigation open with — as I said before, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We had an investigation open at the time, and so that gave me a queasy feeling.

LANKFORD: Thank you.

Hillary Clinton Continues to Blame Everyone for her Loss … Now its the ‘Bankrupt’ DNC’s Fault (VIDEO)

THE BUCK DOES NOT STOP WITH HILLARY … SHE IS ALWAYS THE VICTIM!!!

At a Recode conference on Wednesday, an extremely bitter Hillary Clinton slammed the DNC and blamed them for her crushing 2016 presidential election loss. Of course we know that Hillary the candidate had nothing to do with the loss as she has gone on to blame the Russians, former FBI Director Comey and now it’s the bankrupt DNC’s fault that she lost an unlosable election! Hell, she even slammed the NY Times. But maybe the most incredible line from Hillary Clinton was, I was the ‘victim’ of an assumption that I would win.

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday broadly spread around the blame for her loss in last year’s presidential election, pointing to suspected Russian cyberattacks, the Democratic National Committee’s data operation and a “very broad assumption that I was going to win.”

Full video below of the interview. Wow, after painfully making my way through this entire video, I can now say more than ever how estacctic I am that Hillary Clinton did not win the presidency in 2016. To all that voted against her, thank you!

Full transcript: Hillary Clinton at Code 2017.

Mossberg: How do you do it? How do we do it going forward?

Let me just do a comparison for you. I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party.

Mossberg: What do you mean nothing?

I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it …

Mossberg: This is the DNC you’re talking about.

The DNC, to keep it going. Okay. Donald Trump, who did nothing about really setting up any kind of data operation, inherits an RNC data foundation that, after the Republicans lost in 2012, and they thought they had a very good operation with the setup that Romney did called ORCA, they thought that was really state of the art, they lose.

So they raised — best estimates are close to a hundred million dollars, they brought in their main vendors, they basically said, “We will never be behind the Democrats again,” and they invested between 2012 and 2016 this hundred million dollars to build this data foundation. They beta tested it. They ran it … somebody was able to determine about 227,000 surveys to double check, triple check, quadruple check, the information.

Next Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

 
 
  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Close
E-mail It