Ukrainians Dirty Hands With 2016 Campaign Shenanigans

By: Jeffrey Winograd

If you really believe that Russian operatives were working covertly to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, then you must surely want to know if Ukrainian conspirators were overtly working to support Hillary and undermine the candidacy of Donald Trump. Wouldn’t you?

Well, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, together with Speaker Nancy Pelosi ((D-CA) and most Democrats on Capitol Hill, would rather you don’t even ponder such an outrageous possibility.

This is clearly evident from the words frequently emanating from the mouth of Schiff. As he well knows, words have meaning and they often have great importance in the halls of Congress.

Schiff has been spewing forth “discredited” so much in recent weeks that I thought to take a look in the dictionary to see what it actually means.

“Discredit,” as defined in the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.), means: “(1) to refuse to accept as true or accurate; (2) to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of.”

The past tense of this verb now seems to be a favorite of the congressman and here are some choice examples:

Schiff on Nov. 19: “One of those investigations involved the Bidens and the other involved a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine and not Russia was responsible for interfering in our 2016 election.”

Schiff on Nov. 20: “The first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine – and not Russia – was responsible for interfering in our 2016 election.”

Rep. Schiff’s modus operandi during the impeachment inquiry seems to be if he says discredited often enough, the average person will accept, as fact, that there was no Ukrainian conspiracy and only the Russkies would stoop to such despicable conduct.

Clearly, to say that something has been discredited does not mean that it has been proven false. Schiff is engaging in a bit of razzle-dazzle to distract people from what is clearly provable.

Ukrainians Apparently Conspired To Impact Election

A serious investigation is warranted to see if disparate events, when taken together, constitute a conspiracy, but there are clearly enough provable facts to suggest this was most likely the case.

What follows are some examples.

#1 There is the matter of the so-called “black ledger” which contained financial documents claiming to show that Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, received  under-the-table payments for services rendered to the tainted former president, Viktor Yanukovych. The New York Times reported on this in its Aug. 14, 2016 edition.

#2 Who actually leaked the document to the media? A guy by the name of Serhiy Leshchenko, a well-known former parliamentarian and vocal supporter of Clinton. Fast forward to Dec. 11, 2018, when a Ukrainian court found that Leshchenko had interfered in the American election. The court also found that the chief of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau illegally participated in the “black journal” affair.

#3 On Aug. 4, 2016, Valerly Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington, tossed his hat into the anti-Trump ring, stating in a scathing op-ed in The Hill: “Even if Trump’s comments [regarding Crimea] are only speculative, and do not really reflect a future foreign policy, they call for appeasement of an aggressor and support the violation of a sovereign country’s territorial integrity and another’s breach of international law.” Is it normal conduct for an ambassador to publish such an opinion in the midst of a hotly contested political campaign?

#4 In a July 20, 2017, letter from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who at the time was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the senator voiced his concerns about the activities of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who had a close association with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. According to Grassley, “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 [Hillary] Clinton, in an effort to influence not only the U.S. voting population but U.S. government officials.” Almost two years after Grassley sent his letter, the Ukrainian Embassy released an official statement on the matter

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire

Adam Schiff wants people to think that the intelligence community has clearly proven, which it has not, that the Russians, and no other government, hacked the DNC servers.

However, as you have just seen, those who are crying out about Ukrainian interference have not been alleging hacking, It’s all about those overt activities.

Meanwhile, something rather despicable has been going on.

Various Democrats on the impeachment inquiry panel have sought to discredit the honest reporting of John Solomon, who has been relentless in his probing of a likely conspiracy among Ukrainian – both in and out of government – to influence the presidential campaign in favor of Clinton.  reported on Solomon’s efforts in its Nov. 13th edition.


Impeachment Inquiry – 5 Key Takeaways from Week 2 (Day 1)

By: Jeffrey Winograd

The second week of the impeachment inquiry by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence kicked off with both morning and afternoon (extending into the evening) sessions that produced no bombshells.

However, some continuing trends were apparent, a few interesting facts were revealed AND, in the view of this reporter who served as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, a poignant and unfortunate situation befell an honorable man.

So, here is my list of the key takeaways in the order to which I attach importance:

#1 Adam Schiff protects the provocateur (and himself).

It was into the third hour of the morning session that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the committee, had his first chance to question the witnesses and he honed in on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the director for European affairs on the National Security Council.

Nunes wanted to know who Vindman spoke with in the aftermath of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, The Army officer said he spoke with several people in the White House who had a need to know, but he also spoke with two individuals in other agencies who, he said, had the proper security clearance and the appropriate need-to-know.

The first was George Kent, the State Department official who testified at the first hearing last week.

Who was the second person? asked Nunes. The answer was someone in the intelligence community. At this point Schiff intervened in the questioning and, with a don’t-defy-me look on his face which was directed at Vindman, pronounced:

“I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistleblower through these proceedings. If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we’re here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly.”

The colonel’s lawyer instructed Vindman not to identify the person in the intelligence community and he followed his attorney’s lead and Schiff’s dictate.

Unfortunately, in the minds of many, Vindman will now be seen as a leaker when if, in fact, the anonymous member of the intelligence community had a proper need-to-know, that individual abused the trust place in him by the colonel and was the lead provocateur and the leaker in the impeachment spectacle.

#2 Lt. Col. Vindman is no longer an “unwitting” victim of the Democrat’s impeachment plot.

By most accounts, the colonel has had a distinguished military career. His many accomplishments and performance in a combat zone, as well as linguistic skills (English, Russian and Ukrainian) earned him a coveted stint at the National Security Council.   

There can be little doubt that Vindman genuinely was worried about President Trump’s comments to Zelenskyy about former Vice President Biden and his son, CrowdStrike (which reported that the Russians had hacked the computer server of the Democratic National Committee) and Burisma (the Ukrainian private gas company).

However, as became clear during his testimony, Vindman made a serious error in judgment for a military officer – he sidestepped his chain of command and instead of directly reporting his concerns to his immediate boss he chose to go directly to the legal counsel for the National Security Council. By doing so, he unexpectedly became a centerpiece in the events that followed and had to face harsh but proper questioning from some Republican members of the committee.

And now, according to fresh news reports, the Army may be taking measures to ensure the safety of the colonel and his family.

While Lt. Col. Zindman may have been naïve, he has earned my respect … Duty, Honor, Country.

#3 The Democrats on the committee continue to signal that the “quid pro quo” charge is out and “bribery” and “witness tampering” are very much in.

The day was sprinkled with references to bribery and other matters. For example, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D- NY) inquired of one witness if anyone on the National Security Council expressed anything about the possibility of “some crime or bribery.”

Also, a quick glance at the Democratic majority site on the committee’s webpage reveals more of what we can expect and was evident from the onset of the proceedings.

Certainly, Rep. Schiff’s remarks at the opening session tells us a lot about his and, one presumes, Nancy Pelosi’s intentions, to wit: “If the President abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts — a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid — it will be up to us to decide, whether those acts are compatible with the office of the Presidency.”

#4 Both Republicans and Democrats can focus on the same particular fact and turn it to their own advantage.

For those who are unable to watch the televised sessions, this can be kind of tricky to fully grasp. But here is one example that sticks in my mind.

FACT: Vice President Pence did not attend the inauguration of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

THE ISSUE: Why didn’t he attend?

The Democrats contended the possibility of Pence attending was used as a form of pressure on Zelenskyy to publicly announce a probe of Burisma and the younger Biden.

The Republicans countered that it was not meant to express displeasure or to apply pressure of some sort.

The points made by both sides merited some thought.

In the end, it turns out, thanks to the testimony of  Jennifer Williams, a career Foreign Service Officer detailed to the Office of the Vice-President and responsible for European and Eurasia issues, that the May 20 date for the inauguration was decided on May 16 (after parliamentary elections) and Pence only had a brief window of opportunity to travel (May 30, May 31 and June 1) due to other major commitments. The inauguration was held on May 20.

Ms. Williams also explained that due to such short notice, it would have been impossible to send an advance team of Secret Service and other personnel.

#5 Delivery of additional Javelin anti-tank missiles.

My apologies to readers but I have been unable to confirm with 100% certainty what I thought I heard. If I can do so, I will report on this topic.



Impeachment Inquiry – 5 Key Takeaways from Week One

By: Jeffrey Winograd

The first week of the impeachment inquiry by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence treated viewers to bloviating members of Congress (almost exclusively Democrats) under marching orders from pseudo-dictator and chairman of the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and three highly experienced American diplomats who pontificated on their overseas exploits and heroism, as well as their (not the Trump administration’s) blueprints for U.S. foreign policy.

With all the talk, a number of key points may have been missed by viewers or those who rely on the Capitol Hill cadre of inexperienced and/or partisan journalists who are supposed to be reporting on what actually was going on.

So, here is my list of the key takeaways in order of importance:

#1 Politization of a crucial legislative committee.

Talk about undermining U.S. national security!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) placed the highly partisan inquiry into the collective lap of a panel whose oversight responsibilities can best be described by citing the names of its four subcommittees – Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research (STAR); Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation (C3); Intelligence Modernization and Readiness (INMAR); and Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support (DIWS).

Why did the House speaker take such a rash decision? For the answer, look no further than the twin fiascos that took place during impeachment-related hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee under the gavel of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Those hearings featured Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, and John Dean of Watergate fame. They would have been first-night flops in the Broadway theaters which happen to sit in Nadler’s district.

#2 Obama administration was leery of the Joe Biden-Hunter Biden conflict of interest.

It is common knowledge that President Obama handed the Ukraine portfolio to Joe Biden whose son was sitting on the board of directors of a Ukrainian private energy company called Burisma. It is also well known, as constantly heralded in the testimony of the three witnesses who appeared during week one, that the promotion of strong anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine was a paramount feature of U.S. foreign policy.

Yet, the White House turned a blind eye, at least publicly, to the appearance of a significant conflict of interest given that Burisma and its founder either had been or still were under criminal investigation (a point of big-time controversy) by Ukrainian authorities. According to George Kent, who served as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, he contacted the vice president’s office and raised his concerns about a possible perceived conflict of interest. What was their response? “I have no idea,” he replied to the GOP questioner. He was then asked if Biden’s engagement with Ukraine remained the same. “Correct, because the vice president was promoting U.S. policy objectives in Ukraine,” Kent said.

Two days later, the cat was out of the bag when former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, testifying under oath, was hit with a few probing questions by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). Did the Bidens come up in your preparations to assume the ambassadorship?” Yovanovitch explained how she was rehearsed for her Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing and she was instructed how to answer any possible question about the Bidens. “I would refer you to the vice president’s office,” she was instructed to say.

#3 NATO’s relationship with Ukraine deserves scrutiny.

During his opening remarks, George Kent, who has been serving as deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs since September 2018, made a comment that was ignored by all the committee members. Stated Kent: “Ultimately, Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization].”

What exactly Kent meant by that is unclear. However, a cursory reading of a NATO publication titled Security Through Partnership hints at a possibility, even though it is unlikely. The publication notes that a special relationship has been developed with Ukraine since 1997. “Steps were taken to deepen and broaden the NATO-Ukraine relationship in November 2002 with the adoption of the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, which supports Ukraine’s reform efforts on the road to full integration in Euro-Atlantic security structures,” it adds. The publication goes on to say that 10 Partner countries have become Allies, among them the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

Since the three diplomats who testified have left the impression that it is diplomats who create foreign policy and not just carry it out, it might have been the perfect occasion to ask the Deep Staters in the State Department what is really in store for Ukraine, Russia willing.

#4 Schiff’s chicanery with committee rules and procedures undercut his credibility.

Rep. Schiff wielded his chairman’s gavel in a cavalier and disrespectful manner towards his GOP colleagues, and along the way it appears he trampled on a basic courtesy of allowing committee members to request various items be added to the hearing record by unanimous consent. Once the Republicans began requesting such courtesy to add a host of news reports about Schiff saying the so-called whistleblower would be testifying before the committee, Schiff couldn’t stand the heat and put a stop to it. This ultimately forced Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to change her plans for using her five-minute opportunity to ask questions. Instead, she read aloud more of the stuff Schiff now finds embarrassing and which will appear in the record.

Schiff also used his power to make the deposition of Timothy Morrison, formerly on the staff of the National Security Council, unavailable to the public until Nov. 18. According to applicable House rules, Republicans were unable to use anything from Morrison’s deposition when they were questioning witnesses. They clearly felt there was information in the deposition that Schiff didn’t want them to use. And he was able to stop them.

#5 Elise Stefanik Shines

It was clear that Schiff was afraid of the articulate, self-assured and pugnacious Rep. Stefanik, who, when she had limited chances to speak, was well worth listening to. In fact, when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the committee, wanted to yield his time to Stefanik, Schiff refused to allow it by invoking his handcrafted rules for the impeachment inquiry.

Schiff may well rue the way he treated the third term legislator from upstate New York. Commenting on Stefanik’s performance, President Trump said, “A new Republican star is born.” Somewhat surprising since Trump is not known for understatements!


Impeachment Scam Should Sink Schiff – Part IV (Hamilton v. Schiff)

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Part IV – Alexander Hamilton Trumps Adam Schiff

Alexander Hamilton, a key architect and signer of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 65 on the proper court for a trial of impeachments, Stated Hamilton: “A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired, than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.”

He continued: “In many cases, [the venue for such a court] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strengths of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

What a fitting description of the House of Representatives led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).  

Why did the framers of the Constitution place “the delicacy and magnitude of a trust,” as is the court for a trial of impeachment, in the hands of the Senate which, at that time, was comprised of members chosen by state legislatures? In Hamilton’s words: “The  difficulty of placing it rightly in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodic elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders, or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction; and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.”  

How could Hamilton possibly have foreseen the emergence of such a devious, lying, leaking legislator as Adam Schiff (D-CA)?

Going back to the words of Schiff in his Nov. 5th op-ed: “The president’s corrupt pressure to secure [Ukraine’s] interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office.”

Finishing in a blaze of self-centered glory, Schiff wrote: “For over a year, I resisted calls for an impeachment inquiry because impeachment was intended to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. But the Founders who devised our government understood that someday, a president might come to power who would fail to defend or would sacrifice the country’s national security in favor of his own personal or political interests, and that Congress would need to consider such a remedy.”

Schiff is guilty of willful ignorance and perhaps he should read the words of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The President … of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Is President Trump guilty of Treason?

Is President Trump guilty of Bribery?

Has President Trump committed other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?

To this point, it seems that Mr. Schiff has been unable or unwilling to offer any evidence of such illegal conduct by President Trump.

Finally, take a quick look at the House Intelligence Committee’s webpage devoted to impeachment. Forget that it looks and reads like a political flyer.

Instead, focus on what is alleged to be President Trump’s “grave abuse of the power of the presidency.”

Specifically, it reads: “The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to ascertain the full extent of the president’s misconduct, and thanks to testimony from dedicated, nonpartisan public servants, we now have a much fuller picture of how President Trump abused the State Department and other levers of government for his own political gain.”



Impeachment Scam Should Sink Schiff – Part III

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Part III – Javelins For Ukraine And Deep State Opinions

It was a bit strange to read Adam Schiff’s claim that “Americans can read for themselves how President Zelenskyy sought more weapons critical to Ukraine’s defense….” Schiff seems to be suggesting that during the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and Zelenskyy the Ukraine president was requesting a wide array of weapons.

However, a careful reading of the totality of his words makes it clear that Zelenskyy was specifically referring to Javelin anti-tank weapons. Furthermore, he told Trump: “It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine.” 

At this point, it is informative to look at a sampling of what the news media is saying about the manufactured dispute over security assistance and Javelins for Ukraine. Of particular interest, we can also see the interaction between the Fourth Estate and the establishment Deep Staters.   

For this, here is a quick look at Defense News, Foreign Policy, National Public Radio, Defense One (a property of Atlantic Media) and the New York Times to see who they use as sources.

On Sept. 25, Defense News reported on “the latest scandal threatening to take down President Donald Trump.” Specifically, there was a focus on the “freeze” Trump placed on a $391 million military aid package for Ukraine ($250 million via the Pentagon and $141 million from the State Department).

The author first turned to Mark Simakovsky, who served as chief of staff in the Defense Department’s office focused on Europe and NATO during the Obama administration. “As a political signal, there is no more important ally to Ukraine than the United States, and the United States’ aid dwarfs aid from other countries,” Simakovsky said. “The sharpness and abruptness with which this was frozen surprised many in government, and I think now we are seeing why,” he added. The author opined that Simakovsky was “convinced Trump was trying to exercise leverage over Zelenskyy for personal political gain.”

Next up was James Townsend, who had served as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy. “When Trump was elected, the first thing they did was send in the Javelin. It wasn’t exactly high-end, but we were very happy, and they built on a very firm foundation,” Townsend said. “Playing games with them now is nuts because we want to keep this trajectory upward,” he added. He still had more to say. “Javelins were considered a step up, and the concern was what the Russians were going to step up on their end. It wasn’t that there was a lot of tree hugging [in the Obama administration], it was to go up a notch if they go up a notch.”

Not to be outdone by other publications regarding the Javelin, the authors of an Oct. 3, 2019, article in Foreign Policy turned to Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp. “I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else, It became this sort of embodiment of U.S. support for Ukraine,” Charap said.

The next expert to chime in was the aforementioned James Townsend. Without attributing a direct quote to him, the author stated Townsend felt that the Obama administration chose not to provide Javelins and other lethal weapons to Ukraine “due to fears that they could fall into Russia’s hands or prompt Moscow to escalate.” In addition, there were concerns that the untrained Ukrainian military could not handle sophisticated weapons, he said.

Foreign Policy also went to Michael Carpenter, who had served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia and Eurasia under Obama. He observed that the Javelins are not deployed in the combat zone but were housed hundreds of miles away in western Ukraine. “If the Russians know that the Javelins are not there, the deterrent effect is negated,” Carpenter said. He did note that the Javelins could be transferred should there be an attack. 

Now let’s turn to NPR and an October 24 broadcast cohosted by Ailsa Chang, who then brings on correspondent Greg Myre. The topic is U.S. assistance to Ukraine and why it matters. Things began well enough as Myre said: “Now, the Trump administration is often criticized as being too soft on Russia. But in this particular case, Trump did take a tougher position than his predecessor and has been sending lethal aid – rifles, grenade launchers and, a weapon we’ve been hearing a lot about, Javelin missiles.”

Next to come in Myre’s report was Edward “Ned” Price, who was introduced as being on the National Security Council during the Obama administration. He was questioned about the importance of U.S. and European Union aid for Ukraine. Price said: “This is to send a signal that Russia cannot violate one of the key tenets of international affairs, and that is that big countries cannot bully small countries. Our aid has been an integral part of a deterrence against Putin’s worst ambitions.” In other words, Myre concluded, “So [Price] said this controversy over the suspended aid this summer has not helped, sent the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin, that he could keep pushing on the Ukraine.”

Next comes an opinion piece published on Oct. 29, 2018, in Defense One and authored by Jeremy Bash and Mark Simakovsky. Bash was described as former chief of staff at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department. A real high flyer. Simakovsky was described as a former Russia country director in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

The subject of their article was President Trump’s announced intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. “It was an open secret in Washington that compliance with the INF was lopsided,” the authors wrote, adding that “while the U.S. adhered to the treaty, the Russians quietly research, tested, and ultimately deployed weapons … that violated the INF accord.” They also noted that “the treaty had few fans in Washington.”

At this point, the Bash/Simakovsky tone switched into anti-Trump mode. Why would Trump, who had a “fondness” for Russia, pull out of the INF agreement? They laid out “four major strands” of Trump’s seemingly haphazard foreign policy but focused on the fourth – “which is decidedly pro-Russia [and] this is where his relationship with Putin makes things dangerous.”

What comes after INF withdrawal? “Trump’s track record suggests he will pursue a new deal with Putin, whom he admires and with whom he has already shown a penchant for secret diplomacy in Helsinki,” wrote the duo. 

The New York Times is a late entry to this narrative. In a Nov. 11 white-wash Biden article titled “What Joe Biden Actually Did in Ukraine,” the authors sought to explain away as relatively unimportant Hunter Biden’s membership on the board of Burisma and lauded Joe Biden’s anti-corruption efforts.

“The position regarding getting rid of Shokin was not Vice President Biden’s position; it was the position of the U.S. government, as well as the European Union and international financial institutions,” said Amos Hochstein, former coordinator for international energy affairs at the State Department. The authors pointed out that Hochstein was “one of the few administration officials who directly confronted Mr. Biden at the time about his son.” 

To sum up the point I am trying to make, journalists writing about security assistance for Ukraine, as well as a variety of other publications, frequently share a short-list of go-to experts.

What the Fourth Estate often does not tell readers is what these experts are doing while out of the government.

Wait until Part VI to learn more.


Impeachment Scam Should Sink Schiff – Part II

By: Jeffrey Winograd

PART II – Evidence Debunks Myths of Anti-Trump Ukraine Claims

John Solomon, a highly-regarded and experienced journalist, published a masterful, must-read article on Oct. 31 “debunking some of the bigger fables in the Ukraine scandal.”

Particularly noteworthy about Solomon’s article is that it is replete with links to documents and sources that substantiate what he writes.

Unfortunately, he seems to have enemies out there who are trying to discredit him and his work. This becomes quite apparent when doing an online search as well as by looking at the Wikipedia entry for Solomon.

The key points of his article can best be summarized in the form of questions-and-answers.

QUESTION: Did the Democratic National Committee (DNC) request Ukraine’s help during the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

ANSWER: Yes! Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC contractor, “did, in fact, solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort [who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager] during the spring of 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional hearing into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia,” Solomon wrote. The Ukraine embassy in Washington, D.C. attested to that fact and you can read an official statement here.

QUESTION: Is there evidence supporting the allegation that Ukrainian government officials tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

ANSWER: Yes! According to Solomon, one documented episode involved a member of the Ukraine parliament and a senior Ukrainian law enforcement officer who released financial records in the spring and summer of 2016 from a probe into Paul Manafort’s lobbying activities. “The publicity from the release of the so-called Black Ledger documents forced Manafort to resign,” Solomon wrote. He also commented on an Aug. 4, 2016, op-ed published in The Hill (see it here), which criticized Trump and suggested he was an appeaser of Russia while in the midst of the election campaign.

QUESTION: Did former Vice President Joe Biden seek the ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma Holdings, where his son, Hunter Biden, served on the board and was a consultant? (His son’s firm received compensation of $166,000 per month, not just the widely reported $50,000 per month, over a period of XX months)

ANSWER: Yes! “Joe Biden is captured on videotape bragging about his effort to strong-arm Ukraine’s president into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin,” wrote Solomon. In fact, on Jan. 23, 2018, Biden spoke before the Council on Foreign Relations and stated: “And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

QUESTION: During their July 25 telephone conversation, was Trump trying to pressure Zelenskyy to reopen the probe of Burisma Holdings?

ANSWER: No! “Trump could not have forced the Ukrainians into opening a new Burisma investigation in July because the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office had already opened a new probe on March 28, 2019, or three months before the call,” Solomon wrote.  He posted on Scribd the prosecutor’s notice of suspicion although it is in Ukrainian.

QUESTION: In June 2016, did Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, tell the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko the names of people and entities she did not want to have prosecuted in Ukraine?

ANSWER: Yes! Solomon provided a quote from an interview he conducted with Lutsenko this past spring. Stated Lutsenko: At no time since our interview have I ever retracted the statement I made about the U.S. ambassador providing me a list of names of people and organizations she did not want my office to prosecute. I explained to the reporter [who had asked for a copy of the letter with a written list] that the ambassador did not hand me a written list but rather provided the list of names orally over the course of a meeting.” He also posted a letter signed by then Charge d’Affaires George Kent, which stated: “The investigation into the actions of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced.” According to Solomon, this nonprofit organization is funded jointly by the State Department and “liberal megadonor George Soros.”

myth regarding Joe Biden, the U.S. embassy in Ukraine and Ukrainian election interference to affect the 2020 presidential election?

ANSWER: No! While Giuliani began his probe in late fall 2018, prior to that Ukrainian prosecutors believed they had relevant evidence to convey to the Justice Department, explained Solomon, adding that visas to deliver said evidence were not forthcoming from the American embassy. He provided a link to an April 7, 2019, article he authored, quoting Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, as saying: “We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States. 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 Solomon article can be found here.


Impeachment Scam Should Sink Schiff – Part I

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the House of Representatives point man for the President Donald Trump impeachment inquiry, on Nov.5 published an op-ed piece in USA Today which laid out his raison d’être for ousting a duly elected president.  

In reality, it was a bunch of hot air that may well comeback to bite Democrats in their collective rear end.

The Schiff op-ed prompted Un-American Activities to delve deeper into the Democratic-manufactured and news media-labeled “scandal.”

Clearly the real scandal is what more and more people are calling a coup fostered by the anyone-but-Trump crowd. And it is doing irreparable damage to the welfare, national security and prestige of the United States of America.

Here are some of the things you will learn if you read through this six-part blog which will be published piecemeal over the next 24 hours, coinciding with the kick-off impeachment inquiry hearing by the House Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by none other than Adam Schiff:

  • Schiff’s accusations don’t hold water since they are simply vague assertions and he is oblivious to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which states that the president of the United States is the nation’s “chief executive officer.”
  • There are myths about Ukraine-related issues promoted by the Democrats that lose their sizzle when tested against real evidence.
  • Deep Staters commenting on President Trump are aided and abetted by  complicit or downright ignorant journalists.
  • Schiff has proven that Alexander Hamilton, a key architect of the Constitution, was prophetic.
  • Democrats remain on shaky ground in justifying how they handled the hacking of Democratic National Committee servers back in 2016.
  • Many of the Deep Staters who have been commenting in the media about Trump and Ukraine share ties with the Atlantic Council which, itself, has a bit of explaining to do about an embarrassing new revelation.

PART I – Schiff’s Allegations

Let’s take a closer look at some of the allegations made by Schiff in his op-ed piece.

Schiff Accusation #1: Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sought more weapons critical to his country’s defense and “Trump responded: ‘I would like you to do us a favor though’ and laid bare his abuse of power of the presidency.”

However, Zelenskyy, speaking immediately before Trump made that comment, said: “I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins [the FGM-148 version, a shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon co-manufactured by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin] from the United States for defense purposes.”

Trump’s actual response, most of which was not cited by Schiff, was: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike…” [More about CrowdStrike in Part V] Then, in reference to the Mueller report, Trump added: “Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”

Schiff Accusation #2: “We have stark evidence that President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election by pressing that country to investigate a political opponent.”

However, Zelenskyy told Trump: “I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation [apparently referring to CrowdStrike], I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.”

Trump responded to this: “Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.” He then noted “you had some very bad people involved” and voiced his highly negative opinion of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador in Kiev. Trump continued: “The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General [William Barr] would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

Schiff Accusation #3: According to Schiff: “Americans will hear directly from dedicated and patriotic public servants about how they became aware that U.S. foreign policy had been subverted to the president’s personal political interests, how they responded and how the president’s scheme jeopardizes our national security.”

To enlighten Schiff, as prescribed in the Constitution, the president of the United States is the country’s “chief executive officer.” (Article II, Section 1) As such, he and not “dedicated and patriotic public servants” decides what U.S. foreign policy is and those “dedicated and patriotic public servants” are charged with carrying out that policy whether or not they agree with it.

Further, Schiff simply mouths the words that “the president’s scheme jeopardizes our national security.” He does not describe the “scheme” or the “threat to U.S. national security”    


Comey Raises Audaciousness To Stratospheric Heights

James Comey, former FBI director, the shining icon for all those who plague the American body politic with anti-democratic, lying and corrupt government, along with their lapdog journalist honchos, is at it again.

Comey, who some suggest should forever hide in disgrace, pronounced on Oct. 26 that “the House [of Representatives] has no choice but to pursue an impeachment inquiry.”

This from the man who, by comparison, has turned the late J. Edgar Hoover into a saint-like public servant and who has to date chalked up a performance record that reads in small part:

  • Lied when face-to-face with Donald Trump, both before and after the former businessman assumed the presidency, when Trump asked whether he was the subject of an FBI investigation.
  • Plotted with his FBI underlings to entrap former national security advisor Michael Flynn, drive him from his White House position and leave him on the cusp of a term in federal prison for allegedly lying to FBI agents. (More about this is a forthcoming blog)
  • Improperly purloined from his office safe memos he had written about his meetings with President Trump, said memos being the property of the government of the United States.

Comey Deserves Contempt, Not Praise

Rather than examine an entire litany of unethical, if not illegal, behavior that should warrant his disbarment, let’s briefly look at some of Comey’s actions during the “probe” of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

FACT: Prior to assuming her cabinet-level sinecure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton surreptitiously established a private email server, perhaps even two, in her Chappaqua, N.Y. home for use in all government email communications.   

FACT: 18 U.S.C. § 1924: “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material. (a)Whoever, being an officer … of the United States, and, by virtue of his office … becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

QUESTION: Absent official paperwork, does the basement of a private residence in an affluent Westchester County community even remotely qualify as an authorized location?

ANSWER: In James Comey’s mind, yes, so long as its Hillary Clinton’s home.

Comey Grants Absolution To Clinton

According to Comey, in his July 5, 2016, nationally televised comments regarding the Hillary Clinton email server “matter” (the use of this word was mandated by Attorney General Loretta Lynch): “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”

However, according to the FBI report made public on Sept. 2, 2016 and available at “In furtherance of its investigation, the FBI acquired computer equipment and mobile devices, to include equipment associated with two separate e-mail server systems used by Clinton, and forensically reviewed the items to recover relevant evidence. In response to FBI requests for classification determinations in support of this investigation, US Intelligence Community (USIC) agencies determined that 81 e-mail chains, which FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on Clinton’s UNCLASSIFIED personal server systems, contained classified information ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM levels at the time they were sent between 2009-2013. USIC agencies determined that 68 of these e-mail chains remain classified.”

 In case you, the reader missed it, there were TWO separate e-mail systems involved!

So, what did the esteemed James Comey have to say to America on July 5, 2016. (    Among other things:

  • “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
  • “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff.
  • “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
  • “There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.” [NB: In the opinion of many legal experts, intent does not enter into the picture under the relevant statute.]
  • “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

Comey’s use of the words in italics (inserted by author) were used to work around the wording of the relevant law and let Hillary off the hook.

Justice Department Inspector General Gives Comey Failing Grade

On June 14, 2018, Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general (OIG), released his report on various actions taken by the FBI and Justice Department in advance of the 2016 election in connection with the investigation (dubbed “Midyear Exam”) into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. (  

Among the findings made by Horowitz:

  • “Sally Yates [former deputy attorney general] told the OIG that, as a result of her discussions with Comey, she thought the Department and FBI would jointly announce any declination.”
  • “Comey did not raise any of [his] concerns with [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch or Yates. Rather, unbeknownst to them, Comey began considering the possibility of an FBI-only public statement in late April and early May 2016.”
  • “Comey’s initial draft statement … criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as ‘grossly negligent.’ The description of Clinton’s handling of classified information was changed from ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless.’”
  • “At one point [over the course of a two-month period, the evolving Comey draft] referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to ‘another senior government official’ and ultimately was omitted.”
  • “Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions.”
  • “We determined that Comey’s decision to make this statement was the result of his belief that only he had the ability to credibly and authoritatively convey the rationale for the decision to not seek charges against Clinton, and that he needed to hold the press conference to protect the FBI and the Department from the extraordinary harm that he believed would have resulted had he failed to do so.”
  • We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s unchaged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.”

To top off the aforementioned, in August 2019, Horowitz released an investigative report of “Comey’s disclosure of sensitive investigative information and handling of certain memoranda.” ( The report stated:

  • “Between Jan. 6, 2017, and April 11, 2017, while Comey was Director of the FBI, he memorialized seven one-on-one interactions that he had with President-elect and President Donald J. Trump. We conclude that Comey’s retention, handling and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department [of Justice] and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.” 

Deputy Attorney General Gives Blistering Evaluation of Comey

Finally, on May 9, 2017, Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, submitted a memorandum to the attorney general, titled “Restoring public confidence in the FBI.” (  

Here are several key quotes from the Rosenstein memorandum:

  • “Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”
  • “I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.”
  • “The Director was wrong to usurp that Attorney General’s authority … and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement.”
  • “Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

And here is what should have been the coup de grâce to Comey’s sterilized reputation – pronounced by none other than the esteemed former Attorney General Eric Holder and as published in the Rosenstein memorandum:

  • “Eric Holder, who served as deputy attorney general under President Clinton and attorney general under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision ‘was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.’ Holder concluded that the Director ‘broke with these fundamental principles’ and ‘negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.’”

The Bottom Line

James Comey’s track record as FBI director is chock-full of professional blemishes, to put it mildly.

That he would make any pronouncement regarding impeachment is beyond belief except by those who know him or know about him.

However, what is absolutely astonishing is that those sages of virtue and truth in the media still suck up to him and Comey’s fellow deep-staters.

But watch out, James, because once the heat get high enough your fellow travelers are likely to throw you under the bus!