Anyone following the Spygate saga will already be very familiar with this guy’s name, too.
Victor Pinchuck has some serious connections to the Clintons. He’s a billionaire from Ukraine. And his fingerprints are all over the Spygate debacle.
And a recent report indicates that he’s given John Bolten a few hundred thousand dollars in the last couple of years. There sure does seem to be a lot of that Ukrainian cash flowing around politically-connected people, doesn’t there?
Is it conceivable that the reasons Bolton was given money were entirely innocent? Sure. But it’s still worth looking into.
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton is back in the news this week after a cherry-picked snippet from his upcoming book magically leaked to the media during the middle of the Senate impeachment trial into President Donald Trump.
While he’s now at the center of the impeachment witch hunt, a new report reveals that Bolton pocketed $115,000 from Ukrainian steel oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s foundation shortly before entering Trump’s White House as national security adviser.
A financial disclosure shows that Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation for a pair of speeches in September 2017 and February 2018.
At the former speech in Kyiv, Bolton sat on a panel and basically expressed that the national security establishment would not allow Trump to become unconventional on policy, stating, “The notion that [Trump’s presidency] is going to represent a dramatic break in foreign policy is just wrong. Calm down, for God’s sake.” Read the rest here
A Ukranian oligarch passing money around, and Bolton isn’t keen on Trump’s team digging into corruption scandals?
Red Square on May Day doesn’t have more red flags than this scenario.
If you don’t know the name Viktor Pinchuk, you might be scratching your heads.
We could recount the millions he has donated to the Clinton Foundation (he was their biggest donor). We could mention endless political connections in the US, but that’s a little long and complex to deal with here.
Let’s simplify to something more manageable and familiar:
In addition to being a Clinton Foundation donor, Pinchuk is also on the International Advisory Board of the Atlantic Council
The Atlantic Council has been historically active in Ukraine through their Ukraine in Europe Initiative. More recently, on January 19, 2017, the Atlantic Council announced a partnership with Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Group.
Hunter Biden, former VP Joe Biden’s son, sits on Burisma’s board.
Atlantic Council is the group that sponsored Schiff’s trip to Ukraine in August, just as impeachment was heating up. We’d be interested to know: why was it planned before the whistleblower report became public? Better still, why was it planned BEFORE the phone call?
While he was there, Schiff’s staffer spoke with the FORMER president, the one who was in the thick of Ukraine’s known corruption issue.
Atlantic Council. Hillary. Burisma.
And now we can add … Bolton?
Is it at all possible that Bolton, who reportedly cashed checks signed by Pinchuk, might have been provided with strong incentives to NOT start cracking the heads of Ukranian oligarchs?
Could Pinchuk have given Bolton any assurances that everything with him was above-board, and that there’s ‘nothing to see here’?
Can you see why it’s not just acceptable, but a good thing for a President, as the Executive Branch, to set policy even when it contradicts the advice of his advisors? Because sometimes, being arm’s-length gives you objectivity that you just can’t get if you’re hobnobbing with all the parties involved.