I'm sure when Sondland is done, it will be a very EXPLOSIVE nothingburger .
It's not going to be any different than the last days of testimony. . .
In case you are interested 5 points to consider. I summed up this article.
ANALYSIS: What if Trump was right about Ukraine?
by Byron York
| November 19, 2019 10:42 PM
One of the most important issues in President Trump's impeachment defense is also one of the least explored: To what degree were Trump's concerns about Ukraine valid? It's well documented that the president fixated on Ukrainian activity in the 2016 election and on the Bidens' actions in the Burisma matter. Democrats and many in the media dismiss his concerns as "conspiracy theories." But to what extent were those concerns, in fact, legitimate?
If they were even mostly legitimate, then Trump defenders could say: "Look, he had a point. Even if one thinks he handled the issue inappropriately, the fact is, what was going on in Ukraine was worrisome enough for a United States president to take notice." That would not change minds among those dead set on impeachment, but among others, it would make the case for impeachment and removal much harder to make.
1) Government ministers attack. During the summer of 2016, candidate Trump was under constant criticism for being insufficiently critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin. At the end of July, Trump stirred up a controversy when, during an appearance on ABC, he insisted that Putin would not invade Ukraine under a Trump presidency. "He's not going into Ukraine, OK," Trump said. "Just so you understand — he's not going to go into Ukraine, all right?" But seconds later, Trump suggested he might, as president, give U.S. recognition to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. "I'm going to take a look at it," Trump said. "But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also."
2) The ambassador takes a position. At about the same time as a government minister and a former top official were taking to social media, Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, wrote an op-ed that was published in the Hill. Using much more temperate language than Avakov and Yatseniuk, Chaly said that Trump's statements on Crimea have "raised serious concerns in Kyiv and beyond Ukraine." Trump's words "stand in sharp contrast to the Republican party platform," Chaly continued, as well as against "bipartisan support" for U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Chaly did not call Trump a "clown" or use any terms of derision. But, as Ukraine's ambassador, he was surely speaking in an official capacity — that is, as a representative of the Ukrainian government. The op-ed was a clear message, from a high-ranking Ukrainian government official, to the Trump campaign and American voters.
3) Leshchenko and the black ledger. Serhiy Leshchenko is well known in Ukraine as a journalist, crusader against corruption, and a member of Parliament. In August 2016, a few weeks after Trump's statements about Crimea, Leshchenko took on a new task. On Aug. 28, the Financial Times published a story, "Ukraine's leaders campaign against 'pro-Putin' Trump," which began:
For years, Serhiy Leshchenko, a top Ukrainian anti-corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former president Viktor Yanukovich. Now, he is focusing on a new perceived pro-Russian threat to Ukraine: U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump. The story went on to recount how Leshchenko, working with Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau, published the "black ledger," which was purported to be a document listing secret cash payments to, among others, Manafort, during the Yanukovych regime. When the New York Times published a front-page story on the ledger: "Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump's Campaign Chief," the ensuing controversy forced Manafort to resign.
But the ledger was definitive proof of one thing: the determination of Ukraine's political and activist establishment to exert influence over the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Financial Times article ended with this: "It was a consensus view, Leshchenko suggested to the Financial Times, telling the paper that the majority of Ukraine's politicians 'are on Hillary Clinton's side."
4) Leshchenko, Nellie Ohr, and Fusion GPS. Leshchenko did not confine his efforts to the black ledger. His name also came up when House Republicans looked into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. During the campaign, Leshchenko was apparently providing information — no word on whether it was accurate or not — to Fusion GPS, the opposition firm that worked on anti-Trump projects under contract with a law firm representing the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Fusion GPS, of course, commissioned the notorious Steele dossier that contained a variety of sensational, salacious, and never-proven allegations about Trump.
It turns out one of Fusion GPS' sources was Leshchenko. During the Fusion GPS anti-Trump effort, information from Leshchenko ended up in the hands of Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.
In an October 2018 interview with Republican lawmakers, Nellie Ohr was asked about her work doing research into two of the president's family members, son Donald Trump Jr. and daughter Ivanka Trump. "What were you trying to find with regard to each of these individuals?" asked GOP lawyer Ryan Breitenbach. "What was the purpose of looking into the family members?"
5) The mysterious Alexandra Chalupa. The Trump-Ukraine brouhaha has shed light on the activities of a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who worked in the Clinton White House and later with the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa's parents emigrated to the U.S. from Ukraine and she "maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine," according to a January 2017 article in Politico, "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire," that is the best source of information on her activities.
Politico reported that in 2014, Chalupa had a client "interested in the Ukrainian crisis." As part of that, she began looking into Manafort's activities in Ukraine. Chalupa "developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives." In 2015, when Trump was leading the Republican presidential nominating contest, Chalupa began focusing her research on him, Politico said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-what-if-trump-was-right-about-ukraine
|
