Trump-splaining Ukraine

 

President Trump and Ukraine and the Bidens seem to be in all the news stories these days.  But, if you don’t know how Trump thinks, then you won’t understand what you are hearing and reading.  This short write-up is a primer on the mind of Trump.

For Trump, Ukraine didn’t matter until 2016, when two very important events occurred.  The first was in August after Paul Manafort had recently been named chair of candidate Trump’s campaign committee.  Someone in Ukraine (Serhiy Leshchenko) published in Ukraine papers and the New York Times that Paul Manafort had taken $12.7M in secret payments.  These were in a “Black Ledger”, which was suspiciously found years after the previous Ukrainian leader was ousted.  The controversy led to Manafort resigning and Donald Trump had his first taste of a foreign country attempting to sabotage his campaign.  From Politico:

Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency — and publicized by a parliamentarian — appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, Yanukovych.

The New York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers’ existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were “a focus” of an investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.

The second and more important thing to happen occurred on November 10th.  The day after the day after the election, instead of being gracious after the loss, Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump cheated and was not a legitimate president.  This was based primarily on Trump “collaborating” with Russia to “hack” DNC emails and release them via WikiLeaks.  This was unprecedented in American history.  Never before had a loser in the presidential election claimed that the winner was illegitimate.  From the NY Post:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t just pay for the Kremlin-aided smear job on Donald Trump before the election; she continued to use the dirt after the election to frame her humiliating loss as a Russian conspiracy to steal the election.

Bitter to the core, she and her campaign aides hatched a scheme, just 24 hours after conceding the race, to spoon-feed the dirty rumors to an eager liberal media and manufacture the narrative that Russia secretly colluded with her neophyte foe to sabotage her coronation.

Trump is a winner.  That’s his brand and Hillary and DNC undermining his victory/legitimacy robs him of the greatest accomplishment possible.  It also undermines his ability to govern and is very divisive for the country.  Any of those three reasons is sufficient to fight back and re-establish the his legitimacy.

The first thing Trump probably heard was that the DNC email hack was probably not done by the Russians.  The determination of the supposed hack was not done by the FBI or CIA, but by a private cyber-security firm called CrowdStrike (co-founded by Dimitri Alperovitch).  Their determination was “probably Russian” based on information of who had a motive more than cyber analysis.  Dimitri Alperovitch has ties to Ukrainian nationalists and a reputation for finding Russian hacking, when called to investigate.  Basically, some dude with a Russian name (Dimitri Alperovitch) and extensive Ukrainian ties is the keystone for the Russian collusion story.  Meanwhile independent experts and WikiLeaks are saying it was a DNC insider.

By the time inauguration day rolls around the Dems and the Media are full on with the Russia Collusion hoax.  Trump calls his attorney (Rudy Giuliani) and he sets to work to undermine the collusion hoax.  To do this, he heads to Ukraine to unwrap things from the beginning.   Gee, that op-ed by the Ukrainian ambassador to the US written in August of 2016 seems like meddling in hindsight.  Once in Ukraine, Rudy learns about the two Ukrainians that were convicted of helping Hillary’s campaign by releasing the Black Ledger publicly.  More meddling.  And the fired Ukrainian prosecutor that complained about the US embassy giving him a list of names to not investigate.  There are stories of billions of dollars in US and international aid being misappropriated or simply disappearing.  There are also stories of big payments to Hunter Biden from the very corrupt Ukraine national gas company Burisma.

Trump is hearing that everything in Ukraine is corrupt.  Rudy Giuliani, the mob prosecutor of New York, is shocked by the scale of it all.  Rudy is unable to get documents from Ukraine to the DOJ, because he is blocked by the US Embassy.  Trump ran on a promise to “drain the swamp”, but it seems the swamp stretches from the FBI, CIA, State Dept., all the way to Kiev.  All the agencies are headed by Obama holdovers, so Trump has to wait until conditions change.  Those conditions change in 2019, the Mueller probe ends and Trump can put his own personnel into place, Ukraine gets a new president that genuinely seems to want to end corruption, and Trump has an Attorney General that wants to protect the Constitution and Article II.

Knowing the mindset of Trump and knowing what he knows explains everything:  the effort to investigate Ukraine corruption;  the reluctance to send tax dollars to Ukraine; the distrust of the new Ukrainian president until he could be vetted by phone calls and people that Trump trusts; the email server mentioned in the phone call (surely that was destroyed in 2016, hello BleachBit); why Trump used “unofficial” channels; …

If you want to go deep down the rabbit hole of the Ukrainian timeline,  Look here.  For a relevant movie clip from The Matrix, Look here.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    DonG (skeptic): The day after the day after the election, instead of being gracious after the loss, Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump cheated and was not a legitimate president. This was based primarily on Trump “collaborating” with Russia to “hack” DNC emails and release them via WikiLeaks. This was unprecedented in American history. Never before had a loser in the presidential election claimed that the winner was illegitimate

    I want several circles of hell reserved for her.  

    DonG (skeptic): Trump is a winner. That’s his brand and Hillary and DNC undermining his victory/legitimacy robs him of the greatest accomplishment possible.

    Rush Limbaugh was the first one I heard bring this up.  Trump has become such a caricature that perhaps we forget that he is human and would react as any of us would if robbed of our crowning achievement.  I’d be ripping mad. 

    • #1
  2. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    @dong, what you posted here is what journalism is supposed to be, but almost never is anymore.  Good job.  One suggestion:  In your title, don’t claim to be mind-reading Trump.  Just lay out the facts and let the readers draw the conclusion.  They will.  You can’t miss it.

    • #2
  3. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    And here is Sharyl Attkisson doing her own ‘splainin’ …

    Both Politico and Yahoo News interviewed a Democratic National Committee (DNC) consultant named Alexandra Chalupa.

    Democrats have repeatedly claimed the reporting on Chalupa, her work for the DNC, her meetings with Ukrainians, and her meetings with reporters in Ukraine and the U.S., is “debunked” and a “conspiracy theory.” In public accounts since the original news articles, Chalupa has claimed her role and intentions have been misrepresented.

    A Ukrainian-American, Chalupa reportedly acknowledged in a 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign to publicly expose Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort’s links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

    Chalupa reportedly told Politico that she began researching Manafort in 2014.

    In 2014, the FBI investigated, and then reportedly wiretapped, Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing Russia-related work. FBI failed to make a case at the time, according to CNN, and discontinued the wiretap.

    On March 25, 2016, according to Politico, Chalupa–who previously worked in the Clinton administration–met with top Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. in an effort to tarnish the Trump campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton by exposing “ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.”

    And yet, Fiona Hill testified that it is a “fictional narrative.”

    In my line of work, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    • #3
  4. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    I strongly recommend several books. One is Andy McCarthy’s “Ball of Collusion.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Ball-Collusion-Election-Destroy-Presidency/dp/B07XTMSQ7Q/

    Another is Lee Smith’s “The Plot Against the President.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Against-President-Congressman-Uncovered/dp/B07Z46Z329/

    It is in numbing detail but the facts are all there.

    The third is Kim Strassel’s  “Resistance at all costs “

    https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-All-Costs-Breaking-America/dp/B07Y43DG8X/

    Those are audio versions which we listen to driving between Tucson where we live and LA where a new grand daughter lives.

    The Strassel book explains in detail how bureaucrats have tried to sabotage the Trump agenda.  If that is not enough, there is the George Papadopoulis book, which explains how he was used by the FBI and CIA to concoct a case.

    • #4
  5. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    I strongly recommend several books. One is Andy McCarthy’s “Ball of Collusion.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Ball-Collusion-Election-Destroy-Presidency/dp/B07XTMSQ7Q/

    Another is Lee Smith’s “The Plot Against the President.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Against-President-Congressman-Uncovered/dp/B07Z46Z329/

    It is in numbing detail but the facts are all there.

    The third is Kim Strassel’s “Resistance at all costs “

    https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-All-Costs-Breaking-America/dp/B07Y43DG8X/

    Those are audio versions which we listen to driving between Tucson where we live and LA where a new grand daughter lives.

    The Strassel book explains in detail how bureaucrats have tried to sabotage the Trump agenda. If that is not enough, there is the George Papadopoulis book, which explains how he was used by the FBI and CIA to concoct a case.

    Why read (or listen) when the shortcut to thinking (i.e. blindly accepting the Democrat narrative as dictated) is so quick and easy.

    • #5
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Thank you, @dong, for this post. The conspiracy is far-reaching but not really complicated. If the media was not in on the putsch this would have been over in a heartbeat. 

    • #6
  7. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chris Cam… Coolidge
    MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chris Cam…
    @ChrisCampion

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Thank you, @dong, for this post. The conspiracy is far-reaching but not really complicated. If the media was not in on the putsch this would have been over in a heartbeat.

    @dong?

    Image result for ha ha simpsons

    • #7
  8. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Great summary.

    But you left out the part (a) where nothing that makes Obama/Biden/Hillary/DNC/partisan bureaucracy look bad can ever ever be true and (b) Orange Man Bad.

    • #8
  9. JuliaBlaschke Lincoln
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    I don’t think that Trump himself fully understands his own mind and taking all that into account, Trump was extremely foolish to speak to Zelensky about a political rival. Not impeachable, but stupid. That pretty much sums up the entire Trump presidency.

    • #9
  10. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):
    Not impeachable, but stupid.

    Can’t disagree with that.  

    • #10
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.