latest, Ukraine, United States
Comments 33

Ukraine admitted to interfering in the 2016 US election on Clinton’s side

Celia Schmidt

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally released his conclusions of the investigation into Russia’s role in the US Presidential Election 2016. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians, the press reported. But there is a curious detail: most people charged have no connection to Russia, as in Manafort’s case. The former Trump campaign manager has been accused of money laundry and illegal foreign lobbying for Ukraine.

Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In this regard, there are fair questions to raise: why American citizens are indicted and sentenced with less charges while the evidence of a foreign conspiracy is omitted? Where are fair debates over the issue? Why there were no special committee hearings to determine the truth?

It is clear: a new investigation is coming. The US prosecutors need to interrogate Ukrainian politicians and members of the Clinton campaign as well as to probe the activity of Ukrainian lobbyists in Washington.

Thus, the audio recording made public in the Ukrainian media was one piece of evidence of Ukraine’s interference. According to it, a person with a voice similar to the voice of the head of Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admitted that he had supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election. His office was responsible for publicly disclosing the contents of the Ukrainian «black ledger», which implicated Paul Manafort, to the media. The document contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine’s Party of Regions to Manafort.

Earlier, the county administrative court of Kyiv had pledged the director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk, and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament Sergey Leshchenko guilty of publicizing the pre-trial investigation materials concerning Paul Manafort and election interference. The information was spread illegally and inflicted damage on the foreign policy of Ukraine.


Admit unlawful acts of the director of the NABU A. Sytnyk and the Ukrainian MP S. Leshchenko concerning the disclosure and distribution of the information about D. Trump’s campaign chairman P. Manafort and the presence of P.Manafort’s name and signatures in the lists of “The Party of Regions’ black ledgers” in the materials of the pre-trial investigation, which was the result of interference in the electoral processes of the United States of America in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine.

Eventually, a slew of incriminating information forced Paul Manafort to resign as Donald Trump’s campaign chairman in August 2016, just in the middle of election campaign. Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP, intended to share his gloat with his Facebook followers by posting a message stressing that “after such a blow Trump would not recover”.


“The Party of Regions’ black ledgers” saved the world. Manafort, who was fed from Yanukovich’s hands, leaves with dishonor. Guess, after such a blow Trump will not recover.

P.S. We can clearly see the reaction of the Ukrainian politicians involved in “Yanukovich’s black ledgers”. Political culture – you’ve either got it or you haven’t”.

Another confirmation of the Ukrainian officials’ overt support of Hillary Clinton was the anti-Trump publications on social media. However, as soon as the Republican had won, the Ukrainian politicians, in particular, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov and Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko began to remove massively their anti-Trump narratives from their social media pages.

Certainly, the US President did not forgive the Ukrainian leadership actions. On his Twitter page, Donald Trump criticized the Ukrainian efforts to “sabotage” his campaign.

Moreover, in August 2017, it became clear that on the election day Petro Poroshenko sent Hillary Clinton a telegram, in which he congratulated her on the victory in the elections even before the announcement of the voting results. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin personally delivered it. The president himself did not comment on this at all. His assistants strongly rejected all the suspicions of illegal actions during the election campaign. However, all these facts speak for themselves.

Despite this, Washington does not refuse financial assistance and cooperation with Ukraine. The intervention in the US Presidential Campaign 2016 and the leverages issues undoubtedly overshadow the current position of Petro Poroshenko. Moreover, the growing scandal related to accusations against our diplomat gives us reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the head of state and his future plans as a presidential candidate for the second term.


  1. Robbobbobin says

    Perhaps loads of nation states, as well as busy international bodies like the UN, more or less continually interfere in the affairs of other states and some of the time those ongoing programs of continual interference are congruent with elections being held in the interfered-with states and on some of those occasions those elections provide an exceptional opportunity that’s just too good to pass up?

  2. summitflyer says

    I should send this information to Chrystia Freeland , our illustrious foreign affairs minister for casual reading .Would love to see her reaction upon reading it .

  3. Paul says

    There was one man – backed by a very powerful organisation who worked tirelessly to prevent Trump becoming President. That was Christopher Steele ex-senior MI6 Agent and his bosses who signed off his urination Dossier

  4. Frankly Speaking says

    Not sure I can make sense of this piece, sorry, Manafort was working for Clinton not Trump?

    • Jen says

      Paul Manafort was working as Donald Trump’s campaign manager until he had to resign halfway through the campaign when Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans linked to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election campaign released information that Manafort had done work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his party The Party of Regions, whose main support base was in the Russian-speaking eastern part of Ukraine.

      The MSM has played up the notion that Yanukovych was supported by or was drawing close to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and that he rejected the EU / Ukraine Association Agreement in late 2013. So by bringing up Manafort’s past connection with Yanukovych, the Democrats were trying to tie the Trump campaign to Moscow.

      • Ben Trovata says

        It’s no mystery;the Russians made a better offer!One that included continuing to supply Ukraine gas( even they were woefully behind in their payments)!As far as I can tell,this was almost totally ignored in corporate medIa.( I learned it from David Pear in a BTL comment.)

        • summitflyer says

          Yes that is what I heard and read also at the time .That was before the coup .

          • Mistaron says

            Russia had also arranged a $16 billion loan to Yanukovych govt.

          • Jen says

            The issue I was alluding to is not whether the Yanukovych government really was drawing closer to the Russian government and its offer to Ukraine of joining a competing Eurasian Customs Union – the issue was that the Yanukovych government was made out by Western media to be subservient to Russia by supposedly rejecting the EU / Ukraine association agreement.

            The Yanukovych government had actually asked for more time to study the EU / Ukraine AA and its fine print. Moscow had apparently tipped off Yanukovych’s government that complying with the AA would have meant (among other things) a complete overhaul of Ukraine’s entire railway-line network to conform with EU railway gauge standards. This in spite of the fact that some EU member nations like Finland and Spain don’t have EU-compliant railway track gauges themselves (Finland uses Russian gauge as Ukraine does) – but then, they joined the EU over 20 years ago. Imagine the billions of euros required to replace the entire railway-line network and railway carriage stock to conform to EU standards!

            There was also no guarantee in the EU / Ukraine AA that full EU membership and its attendant benefits would accrue to Ukraine if the country complied with the agreement.

            It was probably never Yanukovych’s intention not to join the EU but instead to be a member of both the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. How that would have worked out, I don’t wish to guess – I can only imagine a lot of juggling would be involved if that had transpired the way I think Yanukovych might have wished.

            • Ben Trovata says

              Thanx,for above….btw,it was Ukraine that refused that two-direction trade action.It’s presumed( by me ) that the War Party in Washington D.C. would not have this.Oddly,the R.F. was okay with it,and,as mentioned above,Ukraine owed the R.F. a lot of money for what had been keeping them warm all winter!

    • Savorywill says

      I think the gist is that Ukrainian support for Hillary was behind the disclosure of Manafort’s financial misdealing in Ukraine, to embarrass the Trump campaign as Manafort was the Trump campaign manager at that time. In addition, Hillary was far more pugnacious to Russia than Trump, and her assistant, Victoria Nuland seems to have more or less orchestrated the coup against the sitting president, who wanted to accept Russian help, rather getting funds from the IMF (or something like that). So, it makes sense the the Ukraine powers that be wanted Hillary to win.

    • Bob In Portland says

      If you look at Manafort’s history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was the CIA. After Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed coup in Ukraine Manafort stuck around there and helped the people who ousted. Just to refresh anyone’s memory William Barr worked for the CIA in the seventies until he got his JD. He was named Attorney General by President Bush (the first) during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA operation to illegally support the contras attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government while illegally arming both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in Beruit . The interagency team investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and perished returning to the US.

      Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee. However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA. His wife, Ann Cabell Standish, was the granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann Mueller’s granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy’s assassination there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset.

      Curiously, Mueller’s career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA covert activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which has been identified as having arrived in Mena, Arkansas. He prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA’s point man in Panama, where the CIA laundered money, moved cocaine and moved weapons for the contras. Mueller prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money). Mueller became the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.

  5. Clone says

    Australia gave something like $50 million to the Clinton racket prior to the election. There was no choice. The next president of the most exceptionally useless nation was scooping up money from everywhere…Hillary and Bill are rotten to the core…but heck slipping them $50M under the table was seen as a nice way to stay on their good side.

    Petro ‘the pig’ Poroshenko and his mate Manafort lavished cash and black ops media favours on Hillary to buy her support.

    The crimes are (1) Hillary selling her prospective presidency, and (2) Petro ‘the pig’ Poroshenko conspiring with the Clinton’s to assault the democratic process.

    They will end up dragging ‘the pig’ around the streets of Kiev behind a truck with his guts hanging out. Filthy stinking creature he is.

    • Graham Hooper says

      John Key the Then PM of NZ Gave them a Big Donation to the Clinton Foundation Pre Elections an Investment in Future Favours of Meetings ,Trade,5 Eyes,Military Sharing and Service to Protect Each Other.

      • bevin says

        The Italian government, defeated in the last elections, also made an enormous ‘donation’ to the Clinton Foundation.

    • Chris Williams says

      Clone – and of course these crimes are ones that need to be listed against the Donbass bloodshed and the downing of MH17, which the all the governments with victims including Australia have now gone silent on, knowing that it was a Ukrainian operation.

  6. Michael Cromer says

    Hillary Clinton has actually been ‘Bad Mouthing’ Assange this week – Beggars belief.
    Let us not forget Tony Blair – Teflon Tony aka T B. Liar – How is he able to walk free amongst law abiding citizens?

    • Michael McNulty says

      He is free but he can’t walk amongst law-abiding citizens. The last time I heard of somebody saying he was making a citizens arrest of Blair it was a young waiter, serving Blair’s family in the closed-off upstairs of a restaurant with his bodyguards around. That was maybe seven years ago but I forget where. So he won’t even sit amongst diners on a family night out. I suspect others do tell him he should be in prison.

  7. Actions connected with Kiev may well have influenced US voters, as a key part of the anti-Russian disinfo networks was “Stop Fake” based in Kiev. That was only the latest in a whole campaign of propaganda to distort the views of Americans about Russia, and about anyone who wanted to improve relations with Russia. You can only say it didn’t influence voters because Trump won – but if Russia’s knowledge about Clinton had gained more attention he’d probably have won even more convincingly!

  8. As the photo for the article nicely indicates war criminals help each other out.

    By hook or by crook as they say.

    By the way did Poroshenko ever sell Roshen chocolate as he promised in his last election campaign?

  9. OK. How did Ukraine interfere with the election? We see another string of allegations that show… what? How did anything done by Ukraine have an impact on the 2016 election outcome? (I would have expected some focus on the role of the Clintons’ business interests in Ukraine on the anti-Russian allegations, in view of conflicts between Russia and Ukraine.) As for whatever happened in Ukrainian social media, it had no influence on US voting choices. There was no surge of voters switching parties. We weren’t inundated with foreign propaganda. Americans just can’t concede that when their candidate of choice loses, it might not be due to some “outside factor.”

    Go back to the election results. Both candidates were opposed by much of their own voting bases, for some of the same reasons. Roughly half of all registered voters rejected both Clinton and Trump. They either voted third party or withheld their votes.In the end, Clinton did get more votes, but Trump got the most electoral votes. All we can say for certain is that a good chunk of the population forgot what they learned in school about the electoral college process.

    • Alfred (Cairns) says

      You are saying that Ukraine’s so-called government – which was the outcome of a US-orchestrated putsch – did not succeed in influencing the voting in the USA. I am quite happy with that. However, they did try to influence the US election and that is another matter entirely.

    • It’s probably money, US and IMF money for which Manafort got a kickback.

      He must have operated like that in the Philippines and the Congo to be so sure that he did not have to register. Even though Manafort was always helping the Republicans only in election campaigns, the Ukrainians would have been anxious to keep at the $$$teet; so for them Clinton – no change – was more attractive.

      • Yarkob says

        and clearly can’t read it’s all there and plenty more elsewhere. there’s none so blind as them that will not see. or get paid to talk shite on alternative news sites

    • Francis Lee says

      For the purpose of analysis it might be useful to start with US interference in Ukraine rather than the other way around. The role of US NGOs was one of the key factors in this process. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which was operating quite openly in Ukraine prior to the coup, is funded by the US government, so strictly speaking it is a GO not an NGO. Also involved was Human Rights Watch another American NGO. On the ground in Kiev during the run up and during the Maidan events, Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine and his neo-con sidekick Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for East European and Eurasian Affairs, strolled around Independence Square in Kiev offering solace, cookies and support to the insurrectionists. Subsequent to this Victoria ‘f*** the EU’ Nuland gave a talk at the press club in Washington openly stating that the US had funded the whole Ukrainian imbroglio – $5 million was apparently the going rate for this particular ‘colour revolution’. There is also talk that Soros was involved.

      The fact that Poroshenko, owed the US and the EU, in the overturning of a democratically elected government Ukraine is not in dispute. And the fact that Porky made this perfectly clear with his support for Hilary confirms this.

      The degree to which the Ukrainian government meddled in the US election is difficult to gauge, but what seems clear is that such meddling had no immediate or long term effect on the outcome as Trump was duly elected.

    • Jen says

      The Ukrainians released information about Donald Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort having done work for past Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (perceived by the West to have been close to Moscow while he was leader) with the implication that Trump was being supported by the Russian government. The information was released in mid-2016. Had it been released closer to the November elections, it could have had a greater impact on Trump’s chances of becoming President and the Electoral College could have decided differently.

      • Savorywill says

        Wouldn’t have made any difference. So much so-called ‘news’ is anything but, most people probably don’t know what to believe. I think Trump’s election was more a protest vote as much as anything, People were just sick of the status quo, seeing the world deteriorating around them. And then, there were voters like me, who detested what Hillary had done in Libya, most particularly. Destroyed a functioning country with all of the socialist benefits Bernie Sanders could only dream about, turning the country into a raging hell-hole with constant civil wars 8 years later. Unforgivable, her role in that disaster. I was so relieved that she got defeated, actually, and Trump did campaign on not militarily interfering with other countries and so far, touch wood, he hasn’t started any new wars.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole