Election chief finds DNC, Chalupa violates rules on Ukraine, then reverses it

Alexandra turned on

RealClear Investigation by Paul Sperry:

Although former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has never been charged with conspiracy with Russia, he has been jailed for other reasons for failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine. The operative of the Democratic National Committee who helped him boot from the campaign should be investigated for the same violation, Republican senators said.

Former DNC contractor and opposition researcher Alexandra “Ali” Chalupa not only worked closely with the Ukrainian embassy and Clinton’s campaign, did dirty business on Manafort and Trump, but also Congress and the Obama White House, the State Department and even the FBI. “In the center of it all [Ukraine foreign influence] The plan was to launch Alexandra, “said Sen. Chuck Grassley, GOP of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Chaluap’s actions show that he is simultaneously working for a foreign government, for Ukraine, and for the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, in an attempt to influence not only the US voter population, but also US government officials,” Grassley said in a statement. The July 2017 letter was to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“Activities involving foreign agents are involved in the registration law,” he said. “It is imperative that the judiciary explain why it did not need to register with the FARA.”

Chalupa maintained that the judge had seen the complaint and cleared him within four months of not finding the FARA violation. (At the time, Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to take charge of the Russiagate investigation after considering the introduction of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.)

According to sources familiar with his investigation, Special Counsel John Durham, a key figure in the ongoing anti-Trump conspiracy, is investigating. Although he was a material witness in his investigation, it was not immediately clear if his investigators interviewed him. Questions sent to his attorney were not answered.

Questions are also being raised about how the Federal Election Commission has conducted its case in a silent investigation since 2017, when it first received complaints about him, until it closes in 2021.

In a slightly targeted letter to Chalupa in 2019, the FEC said its attorneys had “found reason to believe you violated [the Federal Election Campaign Act] By granting, receiving, or receiving donations from foreign nationals, it is important to note that “the Ukrainian Embassy has made generous contributions to the DNC by conducting research against the Trump campaign without charge.”

In a separate letter to the DNC, the commission found that the Democratic Party “does not directly deny that Chalupa received assistance from Ukrainians or that he passed research from Ukrainian embassies to DNC officials.” Furthermore, it states that DNC ​​officials may be authorized to act as “mediators”. [with the Embassy] Asking and receiving negative information about the Trump campaign. “

But on January 13, 2021 – the day the House voted to impeach Trump for the January 6 capital riots – FEC attorneys abruptly turned against him and recommended that the commission take no further action against Chalupa or the DNC. With 4 to 2 votes, the FEC commissioners closed the case. Voting with a majority, longtime Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintrab dismissed accusations of Ukraine-DNC reconciliation as “Russian confusion”.

Clinton attorney Mark Elias, then-Parkinson Koir, defended the DNC in the case, who refused to comply with the commission’s subpoena for DNC statements and documents, including phone records.

“We have tried to interview a number of former DNC officials who contacted Chalupar on the Manafort issue, but each declined our request for an interview,” Acting FEC General Counsel Lisa Stevenson said in a case report.

He said investigators were initially forced to rely on Chalupa’s testimony and documents, although Chalupa claimed he had not been able to access critical text messages with DNC officials. Stevenson said investigators had more stock than the testimony of Andrei Telizhenko, an official at the Ukrainian embassy who had vowed to coordinate Chalapa with the Ukrainian government in a plot to interfere in the election. Chalupa told investigators he thought Telizhenko could be “a mole for the Russian Federation.” He further suggested that he was “mentally ill”.

Stevenson has decided not to investigate new evidence of possible wrongdoing, which was published late in the case, and casts doubt on the accuracy of his swearing-in statement in 2019.

Chaluapa apparently made two other embassy requests to Manafort regarding the unveiling, which he did not mention but which [senior Ukrainian Embassy official Oksana] Shulier published in June 2020, “Stevenson said.” [Democratic Rep. Marcy] Kaptur described Schulzer for initiating a congressional inquiry into Manafort.

Nonetheless, the top FEC attorney claimed that investigators did not have time to explore the revelations and asked the FEC to button up the case.

“This request [by Chalupa] It may help to find additional violations [FEC] Laws and regulations of the Commission, but in light of the time constraints and the lack of more precise information about these requests – the existence of which was not disclosed until the end of the investigation – we do not recommend that the Commission spend more. Says Stevenson.

However, federal law restricting such matters lasted five years, meaning investigators had another six months to assess whether new information had been violated.

In addition to excluding critical information from his testimony, Chalupa seems to have fabricated a story to collect dirt on him by trying to bribe his friends. “Chalupa has identified two people to whom he has claimed that Telizenko came to them and offered him money in exchange for garbage,” Stevenson noted. “However, when we interviewed these individuals, they both denied that Telijenko had made any such allegations against them.”

Perkins Coie is now a central target of the ongoing investigation in Durham. Former Perkins lawyer Michael Susman faces criminal charges in 2016 related to his work digging up anti-Trump rubbish for the Clinton campaign. And Durham recently brought his former partner Elias before his grand jury to testify under subpoena. Durham also received thousands of pages of subpoined documents from Perkins.

Although it is not known if Durham subpoenaed the DNC documents, he obtained documents from the “Clinton Campaign” under the subpoena, according to a recent discovery in the Sassman case. And he may have had access to cell phones used to communicate with DNC officials in 2016, since he was hacked by the Russians after the FBI claimed it.

Chalupa denied coordinating anti-DNC investigations with the Ukrainian embassy in 2016 or breaking any laws, although he acknowledged that he had discussed Manafort’s activities in Ukraine with embassy staff and was trying to make anti-Manafort statements to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during the campaign.

Former Clinton White House aide and longtime DNC operative insisted he acted out of a sense of patriotism, not politics – a common ground among officials who incited hysteria toward the Trump-Russian “ally.”

The Ukrainian-American claims that he is trying to protect not only his ancestral homeland, but also America.

“I am inspired to warn the Americans of our duty to our country,” Chalupa said in a statement to the FEC. “I do not think for a moment that this was a biased issue, but rather that it was entirely outside the national security interest. … Again, this was not a political issue, but a matter of US national security. “

He maintained that an explosive January 2017 Politico exposure by Kenneth Vogel and David Stern – “Ukraine’s attempt to sabotage Trump’s backfire” – formed the basis for FEC accusations against him and that the DNC was full of “corrupt” and “false accusations”. He further speculated that Votel was used by Trump operatives who “planted” the story with Politico to create a “counter-narrative” to distract attention from the Russiagate narrative, thanks to a January 2017 steel dossier leak.

“It is noteworthy that in late 2017, I met with Vogel for about two hours and Vogel apologized to me for the Politico article and offered to write another article for the New York Times. [where he now works] To make the truth clear, ”said Chalupa. However, he stated that he no longer trusted the award-winning investigative reporter and rejected the offer.

Vogel, who now reports for the New York Times, did not respond to a request for comment, but Politico did not withdraw his story or add any corrections. And Chalupa has tried to sue the news site for defamation. This will be difficult, as he does not deny Vogel that Ukrainian embassy officials were “helpful” in his crusade or provided “instructions” to raise concerns about Manafort and Trump, although he claims he was “sleep deprived” when he called and Asked him about it. He does not refuse to tell Vogel that he trades and leads information with the embassy.

This RealClearInvestigations article has been republished with the permission of Gateway Pundit.

Paul Sperry is the former DC bureau chief of Investors’ Business Daily, author of several books, including Hoover Institution Media Fellow, Bestseller Infiltration.

Post SPERRY: Electoral Chairperson DNC finds Chalupa violates rules on Ukraine, then reverses its results after January 6 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.