The dem playbook: Accuse you of the crimes they commit

Loading

 

It’s an axiom right out of the Clinton playbook- accuse other of the crimes they commit.  Democrats are employing that strategy at this very moment. What are they crying about?

Trump using foreign governments to dug up dirt on political opponents. As soon as I heard that I knew they were guilty of it. And guilty they are. Let’s see how often this occurred. Politico, January 2016

2016: Democrats seek help from the Ukraine to dig up dirt on Donald Trump

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.

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.

A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.

….

But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.

While it’s not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign — and certainly for Manafort — can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government.

2016: John Brennan makes secret trip to Russia

 

2016

The political pressure continued. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in crucial U.S. aid to Kiev if Poroshenko did not fire the country’s chief prosecutor. Ukraine would have been bankrupted without the aid, so Poroshenko obliged on March 29, 2016, and fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

At the time, Biden was aware that Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma, the firm employing Hunter Biden, after a December 2015 New York Times article.

2016

As Donald Trump began his meteoric rise to the presidency, the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to coordinate ongoing anti-corruption efforts inside Russia’s most critical neighbor.

The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants said it didn’t take long — during the meetings and afterward — to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.

U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united,” said Andrii Telizhenko, then a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington tasked with organizing the meeting.

2018 Democrats threaten Ukraine

Democrats in Congress previously pressured Ukraine to continue investigations into President Donald Trump or risk losing U.S. aid, despite current cries of impeachment over the president’s similar actions.

In 2018, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont sent a letter to the Ukrainian general prosecutor accusing him of trying to “impede cooperation” with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into collusion by the Trump campaign.

“On May 2, the New York Times reported that your office effectively froze investigations into four open cases in Ukraine in April, thereby eliminating scope for cooperation with the Mueller probe into related issues,” the senators wrote to General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko. “The article notes that your office considered these cases as too politically sensitive and potentially jeopardizing U.S. financial and military aid to Ukraine.”

The senators also specifically add that it would be a mistake for Lutsenko to drop the investigations “in order to avoid the ire of President Trump.”

The letter also appears to dangle U.S. support for Ukraine as a reason for the country to continue cooperating with the investigation, stating, “In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic] institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported that capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles.”

 

2019

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear — by his own account — that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden’s family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country’s “most important asset” and it would be viewed as election meddling and “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations” to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

“I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President’s campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them,” Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine’s leader.

The implied message did not require an interpreter for Zelensky to understand: Investigate the Ukraine dealings of Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and you jeopardize Democrats’ support for future U.S. aid to Kiev.

2019 :Ukraine confirms that DNC contractor sought dirt on Trump

The boomerang from the Democratic Party’s failed attempt to connect Donald Trump to Russia’s 2016 election meddling is picking up speed, and its flight path crosses right through Moscow’s pesky neighbor, Ukraine. That is where there is growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to help Hillary Clinton.

In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country’s president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly’s office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.

Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.

“The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We’ve learned about her DNC involvement later,” Chaly said in a statement issued by his embassy. “We were surprised to see Alexandra’s interest in Mr. Paul Manafort’s case. It was her own cause. The Embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter.”

“All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.,” the ambassador explained.

2019 Adam Schiff staffer makes trip to Ukraine

A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a trip to Ukraine last month sponsored and organized by the Atlantic Council think tank.

The Atlantic Council is funded by and routinely works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The Schiff staffer, Thomas Eager, is also currently one of 19 fellows at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, a bipartisan program that says it “educates congressional staff on current events in the Eurasia region.”

Eager’s trip to Ukraine last month was part of the fellowship program and included nine other House employees. The bi-partisan visit, from August 24 to August 31, was billed as a “Ukraine Study Trip,” and culminated in a meeting with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

The dates of the pre-planned trip are instructive. Eager’s visit to Ukraine sponsored by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council began 12 days after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his August 12 complaint about President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

2019: Rush Limbaugh reports that John Brennan went to Ukraine under a false passport. Hmmm

democrat have a long history of soliciting damage on political opponents from foreign countries and threatening to withhold aid.

The race is on- the race between the damage democrats can visit on Trump and Barr’s report. Just remember the axiom – democrats will accuse opponents of crimes they commit- and you won’t go wrong.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And now this just came out.

Russia’s Novaya Gazeta Drops Documents That Show Ukrainians Transferred $3.4 Million in Criminally Obtained Money to Hunter Biden’s Business Accounts

At least someone has a sense of humor in all this but I don’t think the dems will be laughing as they are probably too busy crapping in their pants.

thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/brilliant-corrupt-congressional-dems-ask-trump-state-dept-for-ukrainian-docs-get-crooked-hillary-and-biden-docs-instead-video/

@another vet: I have not seen this anywhere, but could be true. Is AOC and her buddies pushing Pelosi and entrenched Dems to push the impeachment against Trump knowing they will not win. AOC has been highly critical of entrenched Dems and a failed impeachment effort may show just how out of touch with the world and voters the old Dems are. Maybe this is part of a strategy for the new Dems to get rid of the old “goats”? Maybe a short term loss for long term gain is acceptable to AOC and friends. Maybe, I also give her credit for too much thought.

“Accuse you of the crimes they commit ”

Germany in the 30’s as well as every other dictatorship or leftist government. Tell the lie over and over until it is ingrained as the truth. Slam it dwen people’s throats and turn them into the enemy.

worked then and is being pushed now yet no one will point this out! on the whole!

Which again raises the question. Will man ever learn from his mistakes

@joetote:

Joseph Goebbels’s favorite expression. polosi was a bar fly in Ca. in her early days, harris wore knee pads in college and her early political career and back burns were the worse. biden loves porn. nadler has a reptilian brain, and the squat team has no brains. one olf mueller’s relative ran a concentration camp in Germany and executed over one million Jews-The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.

@MOS # 8541:
Agreed, never interfere with your enemy when they are making a mistake, but one must address the facts unfortunately that the lemmings are turning into the enemies within. And far to much of that is because of the overt indoctrination and the refusal of far to many people to think for themselves

Projecting projection as a defense mechanism involves a bit too much recursion for me to sort out. All I’ll say is that the buck starts and stops with Donald Trump, even if it gets passed around in a circle.

From The Guardian, October 3, 2019 – Trump admits he pushed Ukraine for dirt on Biden and calls on China to investigate

Surely North Korea could also be of assistance.

@Greg: Simply a reference to what the DNC is trying, it’s an old tactic of the fascist.
Not projecting as our side gathers evidence, They know what they have done and are dumb enough to blame Trump and give our side clues as where to look.
Mix Stalin and Alinsky you have the DNC.
Someone gave a hint at the CIA, Brennan is being called for testimony.

1999 vs. 2019: Senate Republicans’ attitudes on impeachment sure have changed a lot

Yeah. It’s called hypocrisy.

Fourteen current members of the Senate were serving in Congress during Clinton’s impeachment proceedings — and at least 10 are striking an entirely different tone with their approach to Trump.

Take Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an outspoken Trump critic turned ally:

In 1999: “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” he said about Clinton, who faced charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Today: “Impeachment over this? What a nothing (non-quid pro quo) burger. Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump,” he said in a September statement in reaction to a summary the White House released of the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Then there’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indicting Clinton for lying, but downplaying today’s scandal:

In 1999: “The President would seek to win at any cost,” he said, according to Newsweek. “If it meant lying to the American people. If it meant lying to his Cabinet. The name of the game was winning. Winning at any cost.”
Today: “I’ve read the summary of the call. If this is the ‘launching point’ for House Democrats’ impeachment process, they’ve already overplayed their hand,” he told Politico last month. “It’s clear there is no quid pro quo that the Democrats were desperately praying for.”

And Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, who took a principled stance 20 years ago, but argued that the Trump impeachment inquiry was taking away from the ability to do bipartisan work:

In 1999: “I choose to be on the side that says no person is above the law,” he said, according to Business Insider.

Today: “We have enough problems in Washington, D.C., in working together to get things done,” he told reporters in Topeka.

Graham, McConnell and Moran are far from the only Republican responding to the House inquiry in this way. Others — like Sens. Chuck Grassley and Roger Wicker — also advocated strongly in favor of impeaching Clinton by suggesting that he betrayed the trust of the executive office but have widely criticized House Democrats’ efforts to investigate Trump, even though he’s accused of abusing the power of the office as well.

Their positions, it seems, aren’t founded so much on their interpretation of existing evidence as they are on party allegiances. It’s worth noting that a similar dynamic was present in 1999: Democrats overwhelmingly stood by Clinton.

Republicans in the Senate are broadly denouncing the impeachment inquiry against Trump

Senate Republicans’ change in tone isn’t all that surprising. After all, the impeachment process now concerns a president of their own party and it’s still early in the formal inquiry.

But the marked change in how Republicans are approaching the allegations against Trump highlights how much senators’ partisan affiliations influence their reactions to wrongdoing by the president and how they’ll likely vote on a conviction if the House sends over charges.

Here’s how other still-serving Republican lawmakers responded to both impeachments:

Chuck Grassley

Clinton: “The President’s actions are having a profound impact on our society. His misdeeds have caused many to mistrust elected officials. Cynicism is swelling among the grass roots. His breach of trust has eroded the public’s faith in the office of the Presidency.” (New York Times)

Trump: “Democrats have been searching for any reason to impeach President Trump since his inauguration because they couldn’t accept the results of the 2016 election.”

“This all reeks of hypocrisy considering former Vice President Joe Biden has already said he used his office and taxpayer dollars to pressure Ukraine’s president into taking specific law enforcement actions that directly benefited his son. The attention on unverified reports instead of an on-record admission shows why Americans are so distrustful of politicians and the media.” (Grassley statement)

Susan Collins

Clinton: “I believe that in order to convict, we must conclude from the evidence presented to us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office one moment more.

“In this instance, the claims against the President fail to reach this very high standard. Therefore, albeit reluctantly, I will vote to acquit William Jefferson Clinton on both counts.” (CNN)

Trump: “If there are articles of impeachment I would be a juror just as I was in the trial for President Clinton, and as a juror I think it’s inappropriate for me to reach conclusions about evidence or to comment on the proceedings in the House.” (Bloomberg)

Richard Burr

Clinton: “I believe the facts presented by the judiciary committee prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton repeatedly lied to a grand jury and encouraged a witness before that grand jury to provide false information. The United States is a nation of laws, not men.” (The Guardian)

Trump: “Don’t expect us to move at light speed — that will probably happen in the House.” (PBS)

James Inhofe

Clinton: “I really believe that the President of the United States should be held to the very highest of standards. You know, Winston Churchill said: ‘Truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance may deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.’ I think we have seen the truth.” (CNN)

Trump: “Democrats have been conducting an impeachment investigation for months, and they’ve been investigating President Trump since he took office. Today’s announcement by Speaker Pelosi, while an escalation of Democrat smear tactics, is nothing new.” (Inhofe statement)

Rob Portman

Clinton: “For myself, I believe the evidence of serious wrongdoing is simply too compelling to be swept aside. I am particularly troubled by the clear evidence of lying under oath in that it must be the bedrock of our judicial system.” (CSPAN)

Trump: “The American people want us to get things done for them rather than focus on more and more partisan investigations. The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry will distract Congress from the bipartisan legislative work we should be doing to find solutions and deliver results for the American people.” (Portman statement)

Pat Roberts

Clinton: “Do these actions rise to the level envisioned by our founding fathers in the Constitution as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ so warranting removal from office? Our Constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must be set by each senator sitting as a juror. Again, I believe an open-minded individual applying Kansas common sense would reach the conclusion that I reached.” (CBS News)

Trump: “It’s been a crazy year.” (Wall Street Journal)

“Political theater.” (WOWT News)

Roger Wicker

Clinton: “The rule of law is more important that the tenure in office of any elected official. The facts in this case are not really in dispute. Even some of his most vocal defenders do not deny that this president repeatedly lied under oath. He also obstructed justice and abused his office.” (Daily Journal)

Trump: “The political left has made a bad habit of drawing conclusions about President Trump without knowing all of the facts. It appears they have done so again. The transcript of the President’s phone call provides no evidence of wrongdoing.” (Clarion Ledger)

Mike Crapo

Clinton: “Our entire legal system is dependent on our ability to find the truth. That is why perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes. … Perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes that strike at the heart of the rule of law — and therefore our freedom — in America.” (Idaho Statesman)

Trump: “I always prefer Congress remain a legislative body that advances legislation to benefit the American people. As to the question of impeachment, our entire legal system is dependent on our ability to find the truth. I will wait for further information regarding the facts of this matter.” (Crapo statement)

Richard Shelby

Clinton: “After reviewing the evidence, I believe that the House managers proved beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton obstructed justice. Therefore, I voted for his conviction and removal for the offenses charged in Article II. However, I do not believe that the House managers met the legal requirements of proving perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.” (New York Times)

Trump: “The worst possible precedent…This is not something that Congress necessarily has to have its hands on…What about all the other conversations that the presidents of the United States have with foreign leaders and so forth? A lot of that is not for public consumption, I would imagine.” (The Hill)

Mike Enzi

Clinton: “[Clinton] was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding.” (CBS News)

Trump: Effectively, no comment. (Wyoming Public Media)

Roy Blunt

Clinton: “No president can be allowed to subvert the judiciary or thwart the investigative responsibility of the legislature. There is clear evidence that President Clinton committed perjury on two or more occasions, and urged others to obstruct justice.” (Congressional Record)

Trump: “I would still anticipate that we are largely going to see a partisan exercise in the House. I believe they have reached a conclusion that a majority of their members, if not all of their members, are ready to move on the impeachment question. And I think they’re likely to do that no matter where the facts lead. But then we’ll see what happens after that.” (St. Louis Public Radio)

John Thune

Clinton: “This is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make in my career, and it is not a decision I enjoy making. However, after much study, much thought and much prayer, I have come to the following conclusion: Either we are a Nation of laws or we are not, and if we are, then those laws have to apply equally to all people.” (Congressional Record)

Trump: “If you’re the leadership over there, you got to think long and hard about what the implications are if it looks like you’re overreaching.” (The Hill)

The GOP, in general, is sticking very close to Trump

Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones who are sticking steadfastly by Trump. Other prominent Republicans who were involved in the Clinton impeachment, like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have also strongly pushed back against calls for impeachment.

When Gingrich lead the inquiry against Clinton in 1998, he lamented the “level of disrespect and decadence that should appall every American.” Gingrich emphasized that impeachment “is not about politics,” adding, “I don’t know — and I don’t care — how this ‘strategy’ polls.”

As the pressure has grown on Trump, Gingrich has taken a different tack, dismissing the idea of impeachment as “absurdity” and “hopeless.” During an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Gingrich denounced Democrats’ efforts to impeach Trump as “politically very damaging” and an attempt to pander to partisan extremes.

Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, similarly, has taken to Twitter and argued that Democrats are “hellbent on a rush to impeach” in a “#coup” against Trump. But during the December 1998 Clinton impeachment debates, Brady supported impeachment because, he said, “truth does matter.” Brady insisted, “If it is no longer the duty of the president to tell the truth under sworn oath, can we require it of any American? The answer is no.”

The overall Republican response to impeachment highlights an about-face along partisan lines and underscores how politicized a process impeachment is. It’s also just the latest example of how much lawmakers are eager to demonstrate their unwavering commitment to Trump.

@Greg: The process by which the Democrats are proceeding is by cutting out the Republicans so why do you think their opinion is important?
Why didnt Nancy take a vote?
Its a sham an utter sham.

@Greg:

“And one of the reasons we all feel so angry about what they are doing is that they are ripping asunder our votes. They are telling us that our votes don’t count. And that the election must be set aside.”

And who said that, Comrade Greggie Goebbels?

Or this?

It’s about a punishment searching for a crime that doesn’t exist,”

@Greg: Clinton lied under oath. That is a high crime ! You are still dumber than a rock.

I know you don’t hear from me much anymore, but I keep track and one of the things I have to say I’ve missed commenting on is Greg’s inane ramblings. As such, my point earlier on about the lemmings becoming the enemies within.

Hard to find a better example of anyone marching in lockstep with the loony left then Greg.

LOL.