• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for the ‘corruption’ Category

A Socialist Revolution?

Sunday, September 6th, 2020

With the election just about 64 days in the future, this is an important article to consider

 ConservativeHQ

Richard Viguerie

Democrats Embrace Riots And Socialist Revolution

George Rasley, Editor

Despite the best efforts of the anti-Trump media to portray the ongoing violence as “peaceful protest,” most Americans are appalled by the violence going on in the streets of Democrat-controlled cities, such as Portland, Seattle, Chicago and New York.

And under aircover from the Trump hating media, Democrat politicians have enthusiastically embraced the violence.

“There’s violence across the whole country. Do you disavow the violence from Antifa that’s happening in Portland right now?” an independent journalist asked Democrat House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler. Nadler responded by saying the riots “are a myth that’s being spread only in Washington.”

After long suffering Attorney General Bill Barr appeared before the Democrat Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee for a Mao-like ritual humiliation session, Far Left California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu tweeted:

I wonder if @TheJusticeDept concluded yesterday after the grilling of Bill Barr that many of the actions of the unwelcomed, unmarked, poorly trained federal forces in Portland were excessive and illegal.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti – who responded forcefully when BLM tried to riot in ultraliberal Hollywood – tweeted about Portland:

Demonstrators for racial justice represent the best of our democratic ideals. The President’s unilateral deployment of federal forces betrays them — and does nothing to keep us safe.

L.A. stands with our friends in Portland.

And to explain why Portland has become the years-long epicenter of street violence, look no further than Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty who addressed one of the pre-riot pep sessions, saying “We are setting the standard for the rest of the country…We will not fail!”

As we explained in our series “It’s Not A Protest, It’s Not A Riot, It’s A Revolution” the street violence occurring in the wake of George Floyd’s death is part of a larger Leftist plan to undermine and eventually dissolve our constitutional republic. Making the United States “ungovernable” by creating chaos during the 2020 presidential election cycle is a key part of their strategy.

We are not the only ones to conclude the street violence was pre-programed into the 2020 election cycle. Bill Gertz, reporting for the Washington Times wrote that activists of the far-left Antifa movement began planning to foment a nationwide anti-government insurgency as early as November as the U.S. presidential campaign season kicked off in earnest, according to a law enforcement official with access to intelligence behind the shadowy group.

Mr. Gertz reported, that while law enforcement officials would not speak on the record about Antifa’s plans as the election season heats up, longtime analysts of the group say such a move would be entirely in character.

“Antifa’s actions represent a hard break with the long tradition of a peaceful political process in the United States,” said former National Security Council staff member Rich Higgins. “Their Marxist ideology seeks not only to influence elections in the short term but to destroy the use of elections as the determining factor in political legitimacy.”

Added Joe Myers, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official and counterinsurgency expert, “President Trump’s election and revitalization of America are a threat to Antifa’s nihilist goals. They are fomenting this violence to create havoc, despair and to target the Trump campaign for defeat in 2020.” Mr. Myers argued that Antifa clearly meets the criteria for being labeled a terrorist and insurgent movement. “It is employing organized violence for political ends: destruction of the constitutional order,” he said. (You can read the entire article through this link to Unconstrained Analytics.)

Despite the Democrats’ best efforts to silence him, during Nadler’s show trial – we mean hearing – Attorney General Barr managed to make one key point that every American should keep in mind going into the 2020 election, “What makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts.” Attorney General Barr left hanging the obvious reason why Democrats have failed to condemn the violence in Portland and other cities – it’s their allies and voters who are trying to burn down the courthouse, and the American constitutional republic with it.

 

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Sunday, August 2nd, 2020

This letter should be of great importance whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an independent. It goes to the heart of what we are and how we must get along with each other or else we will dissolve into a quagmire of hatred.

 

Harpers Magazine

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy
, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

 

The Assault on Trump

Monday, October 28th, 2019

 

Richard Viguerie/ ConservativeHQ.com

The following is a very interesting paper concerning the reasons for the gross hatred of Pres. Trump by the Democrats, the media, and others(WSF).

 

The Assaults On Trump Explained

George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 10/28/19

Americans outside the Beltway have been struggling for almost three years to figure out what’s been going on in Washington, what to call it and how to explain it.

Have there really been dozens of small and large Trump scandals? Or is it all “fake news” and lies? Or is it all true and Donald Trump really is a Russian “asset” or puppet of Vladimir Putin? Or is he, as former Vice President Joe Biden claimed recently, “the most corrupt president in modern history?”

But how can there be a “scandal” if Trump has done nothing wrong, and the Mueller Report demonstrated that the charges of being corrupt and a Russian “asset” are demonstrably false?

The answer is that what we have been witnessing is not American politics as usual, but a sophisticated intelligence operation to destabilize and overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.

Each step along the path to impeachment is exactly what the CIA or the intelligence agency of a foreign power would do to use non-military means to destabilize and eventually replace the leader of an unfriendly government.

Consider for a moment that the “Resistance” to the Trump presidency and the questioning of its legitimacy began as soon as it was verified Hillary Clinton had been defeated.

As Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes documented in their book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, within twenty-four hours of Hillary Clinton’s concession speech Robby Mook and John Podesta assembled her communications team to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They met at Clinton’s Brooklyn campaign headquarters to go over the script they would pitch to the press and the public to make the case that Trump’s victory was not legitimate and that Putin had specifically targeted Hillary Clinton and worked to throw the election to Trump was at the center of their argument. (page 395)

And they’ve never stopped pitching that narrative to this day, just as our intelligence agencies develop narratives and promote them to raise questions about the legitimacy of foreign opposition politicians.

Note also that for the first time in modern American history the party in opposition to the President has completely refused to cooperate with him – even when he expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on their own agenda, as President Trump did on immigration and infrastructure.

Complete non-cooperation is precisely the same strategy Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and the Bolshevik members of the Russian Parliament pursued with the Kerensky government in the lead-up to the Bolsheviks’ October 1917 Communist Revolution – and it worked.

The masses of Russian people were so fed up with a government that couldn’t get anything done that they were prepared to support, or at least acquiesce, to a government formed by a political party composed of a tiny fraction of the Russian people; no more than 200,000 out of a population of over 170 million.

Notice also the vast sums of dark money flowing to the Democrats and the Far-Left organizations opposing President Trump. George Soros alone accounts for tens of millions of dollars flowing to anti-Trump organizations to train agitators and political organizers to create opposition to the President.

This model was followed by the Communist International for many years, as hearings before the House Unamerican Activities Committee proved.

As Jack D. Meeks, Doctor of Philosophy, observed in his dissertation, FROM THE BELLY OF THE HUAC: THE HUAC INVESTIGATIONS OF HOLLYWOOD, 1947-1952, “communists were superb at identifying a worthy cause [to gain] the support of the American people, such as advocating for civil rights and unemployment insurance or resisting Nazism” and then building front organizations around them.

Examples of communist front organizations from the period studied by Meeks include such innocent sounding organizations as the American Slav Congress; the Win-the-Peace Congress; the Civil Rights Congress; the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy; the Council of African Affairs; the Council for Pan American Democracy; the Political Action Committee; the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions; the Federation of Atomic Scientists; and the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.

Occasionally exposés of these organizations would hit the press, but most of the time, particularly after the House Unamerican Activities Committee was shut down, little of the Russian Communist interference in American politics came to public attention.

Are our opponents in today’s Russia, or China, or other members of the anti-American Axis using the same techniques today, particularly when presented with such a golden vehicle as the Clinton machine’s post-election narrative?

Most people, and certainly those in the establishment media, have forgotten or ignored Fox News reports that the Russians indicted for meddling in the 2016 presidential contest were also behind anti-Trump rallies after the election, revealing another aspect of Russia’s alleged interference as it worked to sow discord in the United States.

“After the election, the defendants allegedly staged rallies to support the president-elect while simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a press conference.

“For example, the defendants organized one rally to support the president-elect and another rally to oppose him, both in New York on the same day,” said Rosenstein.

Facebook advertising Vice President Rob Goldman* said he was “very excited” to see the indictments outlining charges against 13 Russian nationals. However, Mr. Goldman’s excitement was largely ignored by the media and the public because, in a series of tweets, Goldman said that the “Russians stole the 2016 election away from Hillary Clinton” narrative is bogus.

As the late Bre Payton reported for The Federalist, Goldman tweeted that the social network shared with Congress the ads from Russian nationals to “help the public understand how the Russians abused our system.”

Tweeted Goldman:

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election.  We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Trump and the election.

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans.  It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

Mr. Goldman was right, but you won’t see anything in the establishment media to help you identify and expose Russian intelligence activities we know have been going on for a century, or the intelligence operations of others interested in destabilizing our government, because, wittingly or unwittingly, the establishment media are part of the destabilization operation.

George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ.com and is a veteran of over 300 political campaigns. A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for then-Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for Rep. Mac Thornberry former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

*Mr. Goldman has just left Facebook (departure announced October 22, 2019), his comments posted after the Russian indictments were retweeted by President Trump, which caused outrage on the Left. For telling the truth, and thereby giving aid and comfort to President Trump, Goldman was apparently forced to apologize to his colleagues on Facebook’s internal social network.

ConservativeHQ.com Officers:
Richard A. Viguerie – Chairman

Editor:

George Rasley

Writers:

Mark Fitzgibbons

Ben Hart

George Rasley

Richard A. Viguerie

Jeffrey A Rendall

 

 

 

Republican Senators Enter the Impeachment Chaos

Thursday, October 3rd, 2019

The Daily Wire 

GOP Senators Say Hillary, DNC Colluded With Ukraine To Undermine Trump Campaign, Press DOJ To Probe

Joseph Curl October 1, 2019

Two top Republican senators have asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that Democrats sought dirt on Donald Trump from Ukrainian officials during the 2016 election. In a letter to Attorney General William Barr released Monday, Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa push the Justice Department to open a probe, saying they have “concerns about foreign assistance in the 2016 election that have not been thoroughly addressed.”

“Ukrainian efforts, abetted by a U.S. political party, to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored. Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny, and the American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempt to undermine our democratic processes,” the senators wrote in the letter.

“The Justice Department has yet to inform Congress and the public whether it has begun an investigation into links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee. Ukrainian efforts, abetted by a U.S. political party, to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored,” the two senators wrote in the letter, dated September 27. “Are you investigating links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee? If not, why not?”

The senators claim Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic consultant, worked with Ukrainian officials to find dirt on Trump in 2016.

“At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative ‘who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee’ and who reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.[4]  Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhiy Leschenko, as saying that Trump’s candidacy caused ‘Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,’” the letter says.

Chalupa denies the allegations. “During the 2016 US election, I was a part-time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program,” she told CNN in July. “I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC, and the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information.”

But the senators cited a news article from The Hill claiming otherwise.

“In addition, in May 2016, Chalupa emailed a DNC official stating that she met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists about Manafort and that there would be ‘[a] lot more coming down the pipe,’” the senators wrote. “Less than a month later, the ‘black ledger’ identifying payments made to Manafort from Ukrainian politicians was announced in Ukraine.[11] And finally, Nellie Ohr, the wife of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, stated during a congressional interview that Fusion GPS used Serhiy Leschenko, a Ukrainian politician that admitted Ukraine intervened in the 2016 election, as a source for derogatory material against then-candidate Trump.”

The senators asked for a response by Oct. 14.

Read the full letter below:

Dear Attorney General Barr:

We write to follow up on Senator Grassley’s July 20, 2017 letter, which highlighted brazen efforts by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign to use the government of Ukraine for the express purpose of finding negative information on then-candidate Trump in order to undermine his campaign.[1]  That letter also highlighted news reports that, during the 2016 presidential election, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump” and did so by “disseminat[ing] documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggest[ing] they were investigating the matter[.]”[2]  Ukrainian officials also reportedly “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”[3]

At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative “who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee” and who reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.[4]  Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhiy Leschenko, as saying that Trump’s candidacy caused “Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.”[5]

The July 20, 2017 letter further noted that the Democratic National Committee encouraged Chalupa to work with Ukrainian embassy staff to “arrange an interview in which Poroshenko [the president of Ukraine] might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych.”[6]  In March 2016, Chalupa met with Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., and Oksana Shulyar, a top aid to the Ukrainian ambassador, to share her alleged concerns about Manafort.  Reports state that the purpose of that initial meeting was to “organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine.”  However, another Ukrainian embassy official, Andrii Telizhenko, told Politico that Shulyar instructed him to assist Chalupa with research to connect Trump, Manafort, and the Russians.  He reportedly said, “[t]hey were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa” and that “Oksana [Shulyar] was keeping it all quiet…the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.[7]  In a May 2019 article, Telizhenko was quoted as saying,

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.[8]

Reportedly, Telizhenko was instructed by the Ukrainian government to meet with an American journalist about Paul Manafort’s ties to Ukraine.[9]  In addition, in May 2016, Chalupa emailed a DNC official stating that she met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists about Manafort and that there would be “[a] lot more coming down the pipe.”[10]  Less than a month later, the “black ledger” identifying payments made to Manafort from Ukrainian politicians was announced in Ukraine.[11]  And finally, Nellie Ohr, the wife of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, stated during a congressional interview that Fusion GPS used Serhiy Leschenko, a Ukrainian politician that admitted Ukraine intervened in the 2016 election, as a source for derogatory material against then-candidate Trump.[12]

After two years, more than 2,800 subpoenas, approximately 500 search warrants and witness interviews, and $30 million in taxpayer money, Robert Mueller reported that then-candidate Trump did not collude with the Russians or any other foreign government to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.[13]  In contrast, however, the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against candidate Trump, which included, among other efforts, the hiring of former British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the “Steele Dossier” that reportedly used Russian government sources for information.  These facts continue to raise concerns about foreign assistance in the 2016 election that have not been thoroughly addressed.

According to the Justice Department, U.S. Attorney John Durham is “exploring the extent to which…Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation” during the 2016 election.[14]  However, the Justice Department has yet to inform Congress and the public whether it has begun an investigation into links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee.  Ukrainian efforts, abetted by a U.S. political party, to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored. Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny, and the American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempt to undermine our democratic processes. Accordingly, please provide an answer to two questions from the July 2017 letter related to the Democrats’ collusion with Ukrainian officials:

  1. Are you investigating links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee?  If not, why not?
  2. Why hasn’t the Justice Department required Alexandra Chalupa to register as a foreign agent under FARA?

In addition, information has surfaced that raises new questions.  A recent report described a note purporting to memorialize a meeting in Kiev between the Ukrainian Acting Prosecutor General, Yuriy Sevruk, and Burisma’s American legal team.[15]  Yuriy Sevruk was the temporary replacement for the Prosecutor General that Vice President Biden demanded be fired, Viktor Shokin.  The note, reportedly written by Sevruk, states that “[t]he purpose of their visit was an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures on the activities of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine [Shokin] in regards to the investigation of criminal activities of Zlochevsky [Oligarch owner of Burisma Holdings].”[16]

The article also reports that Ukrainian prosecutors have unsuccessfully been trying to get information to Justice Department officials since the summer of 2018, possibly including “[h]undreds of pages of never-released memos and documents … [that] conflict with Biden’s narrative”[17] that his actions in Ukraine had nothing to do with his son’s connections to Burisma.  In light of this reporting, has the Justice Department obtained or been offered documents from Ukrainian officials related to these matters?  If so, what were those documents?

We respectfully request that you respond to all of these questions no later than October 14, 2019.

We anticipate that your written reply and most responsive documents will be unclassified.  Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee.  In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committees, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.  Although the Committees comply with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, they are not bound, absent their prior agreement, by any handling restrictions.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to these matters.  Should you have any questions, please contact Joshua Flynn-Brown of Chairman Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-4515 or Brian Downey or Scott Wittmann of Chairman Johnson’s staff at (202) 224-4751.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Senate Finance Committee

Ron Johnson

Chairman

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

-30-

[1] Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (July 20, 2017), available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/constituents/2017-07 20%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20%28Ukraine%20DNC%20FARA%29.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stern, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017). https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stern, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017). https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.

[8] John Solomon, Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016, The Hill (May 2, 2019).  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

 

Impeachment marches on and Trump fights back

Thursday, October 3rd, 2019

The march to impeachment goes on with wild statements being thrown back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, important legislation is ignored because the House of Representatives cannot move on such legislation since Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats care about only one thing: Destroy the Trump presidency. The following posts might shed some light on where this is all going, or maybe not.

Daily Wire/ October 1, 2019

Conservative News/ October 2, 2019

Giuliani: ‘Pretty Close To Overwhelming Evidence’ That Obama Ordered Hillary, Democrats To Dig Up Dirt In Ukraine On Trump

Ryan Saavedra

Trump lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani suggested on Monday night that there was serious evidence that the Obama White House directed Democrats to work with Ukraine to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump.

Giuliani joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday night(9/30/2019) where he detailed the latest developments into the situation regarding Ukraine, which stems from a 2017 Politico investigation that found that Ukraine was working with operatives for the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Trump.

“The reason why the president of the United States had an obligation to ask the president of Ukraine to follow up on these allegations because there is substantial — I don’t want to exaggerate it but pretty close to overwhelming evidence, including a finding by a Ukrainian court that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats cooperated with Ukrainians with the order coming directly from the White House … to dig up dirt on her political opponent, and they did,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani then shifted his comments to focus on then-Vice President and now current Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and the allegations surrounding his Ukraine corruption scandal.

“In this case, Biden sold his office for millions,” Giuliani said. “Is there anybody that believes that Ukraine or China were paying for Hunter Biden’s expertise? Or do you have the common sense to realize they were buying Joe Biden’s office? And that is very damaging to the United States. Joe Biden was sent to Ukraine to, in part, deal with corruption, and he helped to corrupt the Ukraine. He is a laughingstock.”

“We are [a laughingstock] because we talk about corruption and this guy puts his incompetent son to work for the most crooked oligarch in Russia? I mean, it is outrageous,” Giuliani continued. “The only really sad part of this … is how much in the tank and how corrupt this media has become. They have corruption staring them in the face and they closed their eyes to it, and then they make up charges against President Trump that aren’t true. They don’t look at this whistle-blower. He is giving them hearsay evidence.”

“And I’m going to tell you one other thing — Biden’s corruption helped to cover up all of the allegations of collusion because there was a company involved run by George Soros which was involved in the investigation, and that was closed down to cut off all of the proof, the additional proof, of just how far the Democrats went in corrupting the 2016 election and in corrupting the Ukraine,” Giuliani concluded.

Allegations surround the Biden-Ukraine corruption scandal stem from comments that Biden made last year when he bragged to an audience that “he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin” who was investigating a company that employed Biden’s son, The Hill reported.

“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,’” Biden said. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

 


William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved