Donald Trump, Jr. admitted taking a meeting with an attorney from Russia. The meeting was supposed to reveal opposition research on Hillary Clinton during the heat of the 2016 presidential election. The purpose of the meeting was a ruse as it turned out the attorney used the excuse to get the meeting in order to talk about Russian adoption. The meeting resulted in a big nothingburger.
However, Politico, a member of the Democrat Media Complex, reported in January that veteran DNC operative who previously worked in the Bill Clinton White House, Alexandra Chalupa, worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists from both Ukraine and America to dig up Russia-related opposition research on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort, who was formerly the Trump campaign chairman. Chalupa also shared her anti-Trump opposition research with both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, Politico reported.
Therefore, there’s extremely strong evidence that Hillary Clinton’s campaign “colluded” with Ukraine to influence the election. However, Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff (Commie – CA) doesn’t think that “collusion” is a big deal because Hillary Clinton isn’t Donald Trump and Ukraine isn’t Russia, and that it’s different, you see, because Hillary’s daughter never met with a Russian — or something.
To his credit, ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who interviewed Adam Schiff on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, asked about Hillary Clinton’s campaign collusion with Ukraine. Here’s how the conversation went:
ABC’s JON KARL: OK, you’ve heard they’ve also pointed to this issue with the Democratic Party and the Ukrainian embassy.
This comes from a story in Politico that ran in January, the headline “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.”
And I want to read from the article, “a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the DNC met with top officials in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia. The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in this race, helping force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that the Trump campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”
So, let me ask you — I understand Hillary Clinton lost, and I understand this effort was not as elaborate as the Russian effort, but was it acceptable, or would it have been acceptable for the Democrats to accept help from the Ukrainian government in this campaign?
CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF: No, it wouldn’t be appropriate for the Democrats to get help from the Ukrainian government. But I think if you look at the Politico article, and we’re talking about just a single article here, if you accept all the facts in the article, the scale of what the Russians did is not comparable to anything in that article. If it were, the comparable analogy would be that the Ukrainian president directed the Ukrainian intelligence agencies to steal, to hack, Donald Trump’s campaign, steal emails, publish them, directed a social media army to influence the election, and sat down — its representatives sat down with Chelsea Clinton and John Podesta in which they indicated they wanted the dirt on Donald Trump.
There’s no suggestion anything of that magnitude (INAUDIBLE).
KARL: So the scale is different, [I] acknowledge that. But the meeting is problematic? This Ukrainian meeting is problematic, in your eyes?
SCHIFF: Well, it would be problematic to get any kind of support from a foreign government. But again I think to compare the two is like a bit like comparing bank robbery with writing a check with insufficient funds. Both appropriate money from the bank improperly, but a very different degree of seriousness and involvement in the case by a foreign government.
So Donald Trump, Jr. got nothing and Hillary Clinton’s operatives actually did and he’s the bank robber in Schiff’s analogy.
Now the Democrat Media Complex can say they asked about Ukraine — story covered — no hair on fire, no obsession, no 24-hours/7 days a week coverage. No big deal. Move on. Nothing to see here. Now, back to Russia, everybody!
Let me help Schiff with his flawed analogy. Getting opposition research on a political campaign opponent is not robbing a bank. Shoot, it’s not even illegal, even if obtained by a foreign government. It may be seedy or unethical, but it’s not illegal. But if it were, the analogy should go like this — one campaign thought about robbing a bank and one campaign actually did rob a bank. Can you guess which one is which?
No wonder Hillary Clinton never ended up in the slammer where she belongs. She has deceivers like Adam Schiff willing to lie for her at all costs: