Unnecessary comparison of history trump Russia with the history of the Clinton — Ukraine

“And the study of the opposition during campaigns and correspondence, provided by Donald trump, Jr., and what it contains, look at all this and compare, for example, with the situation of Ukrainians, the National Committee of the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign, and there, indeed, was the exchange of information”.

The lawyer of the President trump J. Sekulow (Jay Sekulow), an interview with CNN program “State of the Union”, 16 July 2017.

“Honestly, I think it makes sense to look at how the national Committee of the Democratic party coordinated study of the opposition and the Embassy of Ukraine. This is not an accusation. This action under the Protocol that they have made. And if you are looking for an example of a campaign, coordinated with a foreign government or foreign sources, will be sufficient to look at the national Committee of the Democratic party, who actually coordinated the study of the opposition to the Embassy of Ukraine. And no one in this room, as far as I know, had no serious problems.”

Press Secretary of the White house Sarah Sanders (Sarah Huckabee Sanders), briefing, July 10, 2017.

Special adviser Robert Mueller III (Robert S. Mueller III) and his support team are investigating the role that could conceivably play the electoral headquarters of the then candidate Donald trump in the Russian intervention in the American elections in 2016. The scope of investigation Mueller continues to expand and today they include possible actions to obstruction on the part of trump and his children. Trump insists on calling the allegations about Russian intervention a “hoax”, “witch hunt” of “false news”, invented by his opponents.

His White house continues to downplay the significance of the charges against him, and today he is trying to divert attention from the efforts of one activist, an American of Ukrainian descent, and to establish ties to the former head of the electoral headquarters of the Republican Manafort Paul (Paul Manafort) with the Russian government. Answering the question about the contacts of the members of the electoral headquarters trump with Russia, the White house argues that the real story of coordination is related to the campaign Clinton and the Ukraine.

And indeed, after just a few hours after the publication of this article the President on his Twitter page reminded about this issue and called for a criminal investigation.

Donald trump: “the Ukrainians have made efforts to sabotage the campaign of trump, “they’re quietly working to support Clinton.” Where is the investigation of the attorney General?”

Although there are significant similarities between these two stories, there are also key differences that make this comparison is unjustified.


Let us briefly recap all that we know about the Russian intervention in the American elections.

In the summer of 2016 members of the National Committee of the Democratic party, and independent experts in the field of security announced that the Russian government hackers broke into the computer network of the National Committee of the Democratic party. Hacked e-mails of members of the National Committee of the Democratic party, and other leading democratic functionaries were transferred to the WikiLeaks during the election campaign.

Later, American intelligence agencies have confirmed that the Russian government managed the process of hacking American political organizations to help Trump win and damage Clinton. The intelligence community concluded that it was a government effort at all levels, and the instruction on its implementation was given to Russian President Vladimir Putin to undermine confidence in the American democratic process. Today we also know that during the election campaign the son of trump, his son and Manafort (Manafort) was found with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, and they took this step in the hope of obtaining incriminating information about Clinton. It was all part of the efforts of the Russian leadership aimed to help Trump and damage Clinton.

Ukrainian history

Here’s what we know about the Ukrainian history.

In January of this year, Ukrainian officials helped in the investigation of the relationships between Manafort and Russia — especially in regard to the role of Manafort in the political career of the former Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, had connections with Moscow. According to the magazine Politico, a Democratic party activist by the name of Alexandra Chalupa (an American of Ukrainian descent) began to examine the relationship of Manafort with Yanukovych that was part of her work as a volunteer in 2014.

Chalupa got a job as a consultant of the National Democratic Committee during the campaign of 2016 to help to mobilize ethnic communities, including Americans of Ukrainian descent. According to representatives of the leadership of the Democrats, she left the national Committee of the Democratic party in July 2016. Chalupa continued the study of the contacts of Manafort already on their own initiative, and, according to her, she sometimes shared their findings with the staff of the National Committee of the Democratic party and the election headquarters Clinton, told Politico magazine. Former employees of the electoral headquarters of the Clinton claim that they had not received any information from Chalupy.

The true role of the Embassy staff remains unclear. Chalupa said the magazine Politico that the staff of the Ukrainian Embassy helped her in compiling the questionnaires. According to her, the Embassy also worked with the journalists who were engaged in collecting information pertaining to Trump, Manafort and Russia. A senior official of the Embassy of Ukraine denied the cooperation with journalists or with a Chalupa on issues related to Trump or Manufactu, however, one former employee of the Ukrainian Embassy reported that he was instructed to help the Chalupa in her investigation.

The staff of the National Democratic Committee had denied coordinating with the Chalupa in terms of opposition research. Chalupa did not work on the national Committee of the Democratic party as a researcher and the national Committee did not include in their materials the results concerning Manafort, according to the magazine Politico. The staff of the National Committee told the journalists of the magazine Politico that the Democratic party started to explore trump and his ties with Russia long before the Chalupa them informed.

A Chalupa on the page in Facebook has denied the contents published in the Politico magazine article. “During the elections in the United States in 2016, I worked part-time as a consultant of the National Democratic Committee and worked on the program involvement of ethnic communities, she said in a lengthy speech on CNN. — I was not involved in the study of opposition in the National Democratic Committee and the national Committee asked me to visit the Embassy of Ukraine for information gathering.”

In the end of the election campaign trump has damaged the information obtained as a result of the anti-corruption investigation, one of the Ukrainian government office. We are talking about accounting reports, in which as speak, contain information that Yanukovych’s party paid Manafort 12.7 million dollars in cash.

Sergei Levchenko, a Ukrainian lawyer and former journalist, specialized in the investigation, published these accounting records and criticized Manafort. Ultimately, messages about the effected payments led to the fact that Manafort resigned as head of the electoral headquarters of the trump.

The key differences

In a broader sense, these stories seem to be the same: Russia wanted to help Trump, but at least some Ukrainian officials wanted to assist in investigations, which could be useful for Clinton (the Ukrainian government insists that it has remained neutral during these elections).

But when you get into the details, this comparison is unjustified. The fundamental difference, of course, is that Ukraine considers the United States as an ally, while Russia considers them a rival.

The key difference is that in the Russian case, the staff of the intelligence agencies found initiated by Putin at all levels of government efforts on the illegal hacking and publication of information. It was a deliberate attempt to interfere in American elections and undermine the American democratic system. Data about such attempts at all levels of government is not in the Ukrainian case. Chalupa may have worked with some of the Embassy staff, but there is no evidence that the national Democratic Committee used the collected information, or the fact that Ukrainians are co-ordinated training opposition with the National Committee of the Democratic party.

In addition, and different way of getting information. According to us intelligence agencies, Putin instructed the Russian hackers who then carried out the hacking of the servers of the American political organizations. In contrast, the Chalupa has been studying the activities of Manafort on their own initiative and not under the guidance of the National Committee of the Democratic party. Accounting records are public documents and they were published as part of the anti-corruption investigation conducted by the Ukrainian government, and they were obtained legally.

According to Sekulow, campaign headquarters Clinton and Ukrainians exchanged information, but no evidence for this. Robbie MUK (Robby Mook), the former head of the electoral headquarters of Clinton, in an interview with CNN, said that foreign agents did not communicate with members of his staff regarding the opposition. There is no evidence that the electoral headquarters of Clinton had contacts with Ukraine’s government. While we have documentary evidence that the son of trump, his son and former campaign Manager met with a Russian lawyer in order to get data on the opposition, and they knew that the data received from the Russian government.

“The white house is promoting such a narrative in order to distract attention from occurring to the desire of members of the electoral headquarters trump to work together with a hostile foreign government in the exercise intervention in our elections. But nobody believes that,” — said the official representative of the National Committee of the Democratic party Adrienne Watson (Adrienne Watson).

The white house in response to our request did not provide explanations about the following comparisons.

The main conclusion

The role of camp trump in Russia’s intervention in the American elections is still under investigation. We also have all of the details on Ukrainian relations with a Chalupa, or with members of the National Committee of the Democratic party. But we know that there are key differences between these two situations, and currently such a comparison is obviously unjustified. While we do not give a definitive assessment of this comparison, because it lacks too many details, but we will update existing data if there is new information.