How Many Crooked Democrat Connections to Ukraine?

The list goes on and on.

The closest Democrats ever came to connecting Donald Trump to Russia is the rumor that Trump once drank a white Russian in his youth.

But since Trump is a teetotaler, even that rumor was debunked. However, when you look into Russia or Ukraine connections, Democrats pop up all over the place.

The first and most obvious involves the Clintons. In 2019, The Hill reported on Ukraine actually helping the Clintons:

Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian’s release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton’s campaign.

But forget Ukraine. Russia is where you find Clinton fingerprints all over the Kremlin.

Here is how Politifact (Politifake is more appropriate) tried to spin the Clinton connection to Russia:

Hillary Clinton “paid for a Russian dossier to win an election”

This contains an element of truth, but it isn’t the full picture.

The dossier that the Facebook post is referencing was written by former British spy Christopher Steele about President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Many of the details included in the dossier were salacious but unverified. It was not written by Russian officials, as the Facebook post seems to claim.

In September 2018, we fact-checked a claim from Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., about the dossier, Fusion GPS (the opposition research firm that created it) and how the Clinton campaign was involved. We found that Fusion GPS was hired to work on behalf of the Clinton campaign, but the firm was already investigating Trump at the time.

Fusion GPS was originally hired by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative media website. The Democratic National Committee, through its law firm Perkins Coie and for the benefit of the Clinton campaign, hired the opposition research firm to collect information after Trump won the Republican nomination. Then, Fusion GPS hired Steele to produce memos on Trump’s ties to Russia.

To call this fact exaggerated calls into question Politifact’s motives. The number of Clinton operatives on this now completely disproved dossier is countless. In fact, Democrats would rather pretend the dossier never happened.

The next point deals with Bill Clinton. Politifact reported:

Bill Clinton “made $500k for a Russian speech.”

This is accurate. The source of the claim is the 2015 book “Clinton Cash” by author and political consultant Peter Schweizer. During an April 2015 interview about the book on Fox News Sunday, he said something that caught our eye: “Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

We rated that claim True. And in the course of our investigation of Clinton’s federal financial disclosure forms, we found that former President Clinton gave a talk in 2010 to a Russian finance corporation. He was compensated $500,000.

Try to imagine if Donald Trump, Trump Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Melania, hell even Barron Trump had given a speech to Russia for a nickel! The media would be relentless. Especially now that Russia invaded Ukraine. The new narrative is Putin bad, Zelensky good.

And what of the Uranium One deal. Politifact reported this as “misleading,” but was it?

Hillary Clinton “sold 20% of US Uranium to Russia”

This is misleading. We rated a similar claim Mostly False.

The claim also stems from Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash.” A chapter of the book suggests a pay-for-play scheme between the Clintons and Russia, accusing them of transferring uranium in exchange for donation money.

Part of that chapter stems from a 2007 deal between Clinton Foundation board member Frank Giustra’s company, UrAsia, and Uranium One, a Canadian mining company. Uranium One has mines, mills and land in U.S. states equal to about 20% of the American uranium production capacity. Its actual production, though, is a smaller portion of the uranium produced in the United States, at 11% in 2014, according to

In 2009, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% share of Uranium One. A year later, it bought enough shares to give it a 51% stake.

Since a foreign entity was taking a majority stake in a uranium operation, several U.S. government regulators had to approve the deal. They did, and in 2013, Russia assumed 100% ownership of Uranium One and renamed it Uranium One Holding.

In our previous fact-check, we noted that Clinton sat on the committee that approved the sale — but the decision was not hers alone. She also did not have the power to veto the committee’s decision.

Again, lots of bread crumbs that lead to the Clintons and friends of the Clintons.

But it never seemed enough for Robert Mueller and team to look into this. Or Bill Clinton’s massive pay for speeches. Or this next point: Russian money donated to The Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation “received $150M from Russia”

This is exaggerated. We rated a similar claim Mostly False.

Nine people related to Uranium One donated to the Clinton Foundation. But the bulk of the money, about $131 million, came from Giustra — a businessman from Canada, not Russia.

Giustra said he sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and about 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

We haven’t independently verified Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One investors drops significantly — from $145 million to $4 million.

Let’s say this donation was only $4 million as Politifact claims. Still, imagine how the media would treat The Trump Foundation for receiving a fraction of this amount. I don’t recall a single Democrat on all the committees investigating Trump looking into the FACT that Russians donated millions to the Clintons.

As for Guistra, if he did donate $131 million to The Clinton Foundation and has ties to Russia, isn’t that worth a look-see?

And we have another Democrat Ukraine connection.

As The Miami Herald reported in 2018:

Public records show that Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s husband, Robert Powell, spent much of the last 10 years as general counsel for companies owned at least in part by Igor Kolomoisky, a wealthy Ukrainian businessman involved in banking and mining. In federal financial disclosures, Mucarsel-Powell reported that her husband of 15 years earned most of their household income during the previous two years — at least $695,000 — from a ferroalloys trading corporation associated with Kolomoisky.

Swan reported in April 2018 that the FBI was “investigating” Kolomoisky over “potential financial crimes, including money laundering, according to the sources, who say the probe is wide-ranging and has been under way for quite some time. Kolomoisky has not been charged with any crime, and a lawyer representing him said he denies any wrongdoing.”

Try to imagine how many Democrats who are friends or partners of the Clinton with ties to Russians or Ukrainians. There exist many. Yet we have heard little of them.

Joe Biden actually threatened Ukraine on video about investigating his crackhead son, but Democrats refused to investigate this crime. They claimed Trump targeted Biden, because of the 2020 election.

Then just add the latest world news. Biden shut down the Keystone Pipeline the moment he took office. Then he started buying billions of barrels of Russian oil a day. Meanwhile, a group of lobbyists and even a Biden adviser were raking in millions off their Russian oil investments. To me, it’s a clear signal that the Biden Administration helped clear the path for such a payoff.

I won’t blame Biden personally, because I don’t think he’s smart enough to orchestrate something so complex. Yet, he had to give the nod for his guys to get it done. Come on man! You know it’s true. Which is why Biden’s butthole puckered the moment he realized the US is banning Russian oil. There go those Russian oil payouts. But who knows, maybe Biden can resurrect a board seat at Burisma. I hear Hunter is out of the job now that his art business flopped.

Back to top button