Where liberal newspaper-readers can get the real story on Trump and Ukraine

Pending Pelosi sending articles of impeachment to the Senate, Trump is impeached.  Big deal.  At least Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chief who got rich off Ukraine, has a chance at a pardon.  Let's hear it for Judge Wiley!

Speaking of Manafort and Ukraine, fake news continues to ruin my day.  Otherwise, good journalists  Chris Megerian and Sarah D. Wire saw fit to turn the Ukraine scandal on its head in "Ukraine scandal slow to reveal answers."  My Saturday, ruined by the L.A. Times, a leading West Coast newspaper. More's the pity — why do I read such nonsense?

But I get it.  Operating under strict guidelines — make that a set of restrictions set by their bosses — these two can only wonder, "[W]here did Trump originally learn the conspiracy theory that Ukraine opposed his election?"  Operating under a set of restrictions, they can only state that "mysteries shroud the controversy that led to impeachment" and that "it could take years to get a complete picture."

What hogwash.  We've had the complete picture for nearly three years, and it didn't take long for good journalism to develop it, either.

Chris's and Sarah's "Ukraine Scandal slow to reveal answers" (12/21/19) is about, as Mark Levin says, "Unfreedom of the Press."  I see unfreedom everywhere, with the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal, whether I'm looking for it (why? I don't know) or not. 

First of all, Ukraine's opposition to Trump's election is not a conspiracy theory; it's a fact.  Writing for Politico, Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern revealed the facts surrounding Trump's campaign in "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" almost three years ago — old news, indeed. 

Furthermore, the controversy that led to impeachment is not shrouded in mysteries, as Chris and Sarah state.  Understand, I'm not accusing them of lying, but "evidence of the president's guilt is overwhelming" — a torpedo aimed at the USS America — does the public a gross disservice.  What's overwhelming is opinion.  

Ukraine's opposition to Trump's election is not a conspiracy theory; it's a fact, if Chris and Sarah are interested.  I know that the Times editorial board is not; more's the pity.

Chris and Sarah suggest (for the Times, as others have suggested for the Washington Post) that Trump found out about Ukraine's opposition to his election from Putin.  He did not.  He found out from Politico, from Kenneth and David, eight days prior to his inauguration on January 20, 2017, reading "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" over a steaming cup of Starbucks dark roast.  It was 5:00 A.M.  He's an early riser.  I have it on good authority.

I urge the Times' readers to read Kenneth and David's "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" for the straight dope on Ukraine.  It's excellent investigative journalism.  Also, I urge Times-readers to keep an open mind — i.e., resist the urge to ignore it because it doesn't fit the Trump-colluded-with-Russia narrative.  The DNC colluded with Ukraine is more like it.

It seems as though Democrats like to accuse Republicans of what Democrats themselves do. 

Basically, I learned from Kenneth and David that Ukrainian government officials began investigating Manafort during the Trump campaign, that they colluded with Clinton allies who were working hard to create damaging information on Trump and his advisers. 

Corrupt Ukrainians wanted Hillary to win to keep relations with her administration (Obama's, basically) going in Ukraine, not to mention Joe Biden's kid-pro-quo going as an insurance policy for corrupt Burisma against investigation by government officials. 

But after Trump won, Ukrainian officials scrambled "to make amends," hoping to curry Trump administration favor and keep strong relations with the U.S. going, whereas Clinton allies continued working hard to oust Trump — the president of the United States! — in conjunction with members of the FBI and left-leaning media outlets — sore losers all — by means of the phony Mueller Investigation, etc., exhibiting palpable hatred (treason?) toward America's commander-in-chief.

And the rest (of a scandal that's worse than Watergate) is history. 

On a happier note, Judge Wiley tossed Paul Manafort's mortgage fraud case five days ago, which case is largely seen as Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance's hedge against the possibility that Trump might pardon Manafort for his federal crimes.  Before he joined the Trump campaign, Manafort laundered payments received from Ukraine (to hide money from U.S. authorities).  He was fired from the campaign in August 2016.  Thus, a Trump pardon is highly unlikely.

The Times is a lost cause, but I'm happy to help its readers.  I'm happy to help the Republic any way I can.  Damn the Times, full speed ahead.  God bless America. 

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

Pending Pelosi sending articles of impeachment to the Senate, Trump is impeached.  Big deal.  At least Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chief who got rich off Ukraine, has a chance at a pardon.  Let's hear it for Judge Wiley!

Speaking of Manafort and Ukraine, fake news continues to ruin my day.  Otherwise, good journalists  Chris Megerian and Sarah D. Wire saw fit to turn the Ukraine scandal on its head in "Ukraine scandal slow to reveal answers."  My Saturday, ruined by the L.A. Times, a leading West Coast newspaper. More's the pity — why do I read such nonsense?

But I get it.  Operating under strict guidelines — make that a set of restrictions set by their bosses — these two can only wonder, "[W]here did Trump originally learn the conspiracy theory that Ukraine opposed his election?"  Operating under a set of restrictions, they can only state that "mysteries shroud the controversy that led to impeachment" and that "it could take years to get a complete picture."

What hogwash.  We've had the complete picture for nearly three years, and it didn't take long for good journalism to develop it, either.

Chris's and Sarah's "Ukraine Scandal slow to reveal answers" (12/21/19) is about, as Mark Levin says, "Unfreedom of the Press."  I see unfreedom everywhere, with the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal, whether I'm looking for it (why? I don't know) or not. 

First of all, Ukraine's opposition to Trump's election is not a conspiracy theory; it's a fact.  Writing for Politico, Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern revealed the facts surrounding Trump's campaign in "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" almost three years ago — old news, indeed. 

Furthermore, the controversy that led to impeachment is not shrouded in mysteries, as Chris and Sarah state.  Understand, I'm not accusing them of lying, but "evidence of the president's guilt is overwhelming" — a torpedo aimed at the USS America — does the public a gross disservice.  What's overwhelming is opinion.  

Ukraine's opposition to Trump's election is not a conspiracy theory; it's a fact, if Chris and Sarah are interested.  I know that the Times editorial board is not; more's the pity.

Chris and Sarah suggest (for the Times, as others have suggested for the Washington Post) that Trump found out about Ukraine's opposition to his election from Putin.  He did not.  He found out from Politico, from Kenneth and David, eight days prior to his inauguration on January 20, 2017, reading "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" over a steaming cup of Starbucks dark roast.  It was 5:00 A.M.  He's an early riser.  I have it on good authority.

I urge the Times' readers to read Kenneth and David's "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" for the straight dope on Ukraine.  It's excellent investigative journalism.  Also, I urge Times-readers to keep an open mind — i.e., resist the urge to ignore it because it doesn't fit the Trump-colluded-with-Russia narrative.  The DNC colluded with Ukraine is more like it.

It seems as though Democrats like to accuse Republicans of what Democrats themselves do. 

Basically, I learned from Kenneth and David that Ukrainian government officials began investigating Manafort during the Trump campaign, that they colluded with Clinton allies who were working hard to create damaging information on Trump and his advisers. 

Corrupt Ukrainians wanted Hillary to win to keep relations with her administration (Obama's, basically) going in Ukraine, not to mention Joe Biden's kid-pro-quo going as an insurance policy for corrupt Burisma against investigation by government officials. 

But after Trump won, Ukrainian officials scrambled "to make amends," hoping to curry Trump administration favor and keep strong relations with the U.S. going, whereas Clinton allies continued working hard to oust Trump — the president of the United States! — in conjunction with members of the FBI and left-leaning media outlets — sore losers all — by means of the phony Mueller Investigation, etc., exhibiting palpable hatred (treason?) toward America's commander-in-chief.

And the rest (of a scandal that's worse than Watergate) is history. 

On a happier note, Judge Wiley tossed Paul Manafort's mortgage fraud case five days ago, which case is largely seen as Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance's hedge against the possibility that Trump might pardon Manafort for his federal crimes.  Before he joined the Trump campaign, Manafort laundered payments received from Ukraine (to hide money from U.S. authorities).  He was fired from the campaign in August 2016.  Thus, a Trump pardon is highly unlikely.

The Times is a lost cause, but I'm happy to help its readers.  I'm happy to help the Republic any way I can.  Damn the Times, full speed ahead.  God bless America. 

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.