Even if our own federal law enforcement bureaucracy fails to investigate Hillary Clinton, it appears the chief prosecutor of Ukraine might actually do it.
From everything we can tell at this point, Robert Mueller and his team of investigators have found no evidence at all of “collusion” (conspiracy) between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russians. (We’ve seen much evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the investigators, though. I digress.) But according to THE HILL’s John Solomon, Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko –- their equivalent of our attorney general –- has opened a criminal probe into attempts by a Ukrainian official to interfere in our 2016 election...on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
He has done so because a member of the Ukrainian parliament claims that the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), a man named Artem Sytnyk, was trying to damage Trump’s campaign and help Hillary become President.
That’s right: The accused man is head of that country’s National ANTI-CORRUPTION Bureau. I’ll pause while you fall to the floor and roll around, laughing helplessly. It's a good thing bureaucrats aren't known for having much of a sense of humor, or else they'd die laughing.
Anyway, our State Department has acknowledged awareness of this investigation. In its statement, which conveniently leaves out any reference to the former secretary of state, I found this similarly hilarious sentence: “We have consistently said that Ukraine’s long-term success and resilience depends on its commitment to reform, in particular the fight to address corruption.”
It occurs to me that the long-term success of our own State Department might depend on that, too. (In a side note, FOX News’ Catherine Herridge believes that Rep. Mark Meadows’ claim of a coordinated attempt to neutralize Trump also involved someone at our State Department. Story at the link.)
As for Sytnyk, he’s alleged to have been involved in the release of Manafort’s so-called “black ledger,” the financial records which provided evidence of Manafort’s business on behalf of Ukraine. This, of course, would have been part of a strategy to wound Trump, as Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager. There’s reportedly even a voice recording, made by the member of the Ukrainian parliament who accuses Sytnyk, of someone alleged to be Sytnyk saying flat-out that he leaked the Manafort records in an attempt to help Clinton win the 2016 presidential election.
In fact, though it hasn’t been widely reported here in America (big shock), a Ukrainian court has already ruled that the leaking of these records was an improper effort to influence our election. So now they’re looking into who was responsible. Was it Sytnyk? And was he working on his own, or did he have contacts within our State Department, with possible connections to Hillary’s campaign? We don’t know, at least at this point. And we don’t know if Hillary herself was a part of this or had knowledge and was therefore complicit.
Maybe we’ll never find out. But one thing we do know: there’s at least one Ukrainian prosecutor who shows far more curiosity about this than Loretta Lynch or Robert Mueller ever would.
This is a developing story that also involves the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who appears to be someone who WISHES the Trump campaign had been successfully sabotaged. More to come.