By Daniel Bobinski
For the past week or so, I’ve been digging through old news articles, looking for a connection between Rep. Adam Schiff and Ukraine. Schiff has been at the tip of the spear trying to prod President Trump out of office since the day Trump was elected, but when Trump started talking with newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky, Schiff’s behavior became even more weird, and that raised a red flag for me. Schiff’s behavior indicates that he’s hiding something, and that he wants to keep it hidden by obfuscating.
Let’s start with two irrefutable facts:
- Ukraine’s new president ran for office on a campaign of rooting out corruption.
- After Trump and Zelensky talked with one another on the phone, Schiff read a wildly fabricated transcript of the call. It needs to be emphasized that Schiff created this false narrative even AFTER the actual transcript was released.
How crazy does one have to be to do that? Yes, Schiff was whacko during the Russia hoax, making claims he never backed up, but he really went off the rails after Trump talked with Zelensky. Could it be that Schiff is in need of psychological help, or is he just hiding something? Could be both, but I’ll be nice and suggest he’s hiding something.
I also believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants Trump’s nose (and his eyes and his ears) away from all things Ukrainian. Why? Because no Speaker in her right mind calls for impeachment proceedings without having read any of the documents quoted as the reason for starting the proceedings. She moved waaaaaay too fast, yet nobody in the legacy media called her on it.
Put another way, none of this passed the smell test.
In my digging for Schiff and Pelosi connections to Ukraine, I came across some interesting circumstantial evidence, which I’ll get to in a minute. All this searching is an attempt to answer the nagging question, “What kind of kickbacks or favors are Pelosi and Schiff (and others) getting from Ukrainian connections?” The evidence started to pile up so much that I need to present it in two parts. Here in Part 1 I’ll cover some of the circumstantial evidence surrounding Adam Schiff’s Ukrainian ties. In Part 2, I’ll look at some of Pelosi’s connections, and also some strong evidence of Democratic malfeasance regarding what’s been going on in Ukraine.
The need for misdirection
I love an analogy I saw the other day. Imagine 20 bank employees embezzling money from a bank. Then the bank gets a new president who knows nothing about their scam. They immediately paint him as a bad man who shouldn’t be president of the company, but then one day he starts inquiring about the books. Immediately the 20 employees fabricate stories about the president to smear him. They twist and manipulate his words and actions to make it look like he’s the guy who’s doing illegal things and personally profiting from his position in the bank – not them.
For magicians, otherwise known as illusionists, the phrase for this is “misdirection,” and the analogy fits well. Why else would Pelosi, Schiff, and a whole host of others spring to action as soon as Trump reached out to the new Ukrainian President – who, again, wants to root out corruption? This irrational behavior suggests they’re hiding money laundering activities or kickbacks … but where?
In the timeline of events I’m about to give, it would appear Adam Schiff may be doing some wonderful favors for someone who raises money for him. And, for those who understand the nature of The Swamp, the timeline also makes one wonder what Schiff might be receiving in return for any favors he might be giving.
I’m not making any accusations, but I do think Americans need answers to some key questions.
In talking with a friend of mine about this, he agreed, saying, “How easy would it be for Congressional representatives – and Vice Presidents – to send military aid money to countries, and then make connections for their children or their friends to get high-paying jobs or contracts with the Ukrainian government? And how easy would it be for Congressional representatives to “suggest” to Ukrainian government officials that they hire specific companies – companies run by people who donate heavily to these representatives’ re-election campaigns?”
The following summarizes only a fraction of what I found in a dozen or so hours of poking around. Lots of this information has already been talked about, but my goal here is to fill in some gaps, attempt to clarify a timeline of events, and pose some questions that our country needs to address.
The first thing one usually finds when digging into Schiff’s background with Ukraine is a fundraising dinner for Schiff, hosted by one Igor Pasternak in Pasternak’s home in 2013. Price of admission? $1,000 to be a guest, $2,500 if you wanted recognition as a sponsor. Make checks payable to Adam Schiff for Congress.
Who is Pasternak? He owns a company that makes blimps. Born in Kazakhstan, he was raised and educated in then-Soviet-run Ukraine where he pursued his dream to re-ignite the idea that helium airships could be practical. Pasternak moved to California in 1994, believing his airships could be commercially viable for transporting goods.
Then, September 11, 2001 happened. Though he started making blimps for commercial use, Pasternak’s connection to Congressional representatives stems from military applications for his airships, which can stay aloft for five days or more. According to an article in Wired magazine about Pasternak’s blimps:
No surprise, there are military applications here. Instead of hurling bombs onto London, the thinking is that airships, which can quietly stay aloft in one place for long periods, would be great for surveillance. Before September 11, 2001, US firm Worldwide Aeros mostly made airships for advertising, says Russian-born CEO Igor Pasternak. “One day, we wake up and we become defense company.” [emphasis added]
And a defense company they became. By reviewing Pasternak’s political donations in Federal Election Commission records, after 2001, Pasternak started making political donations. At first it was only to a few Democrats, but in short order he increased the amount of his giving and gave to Republicans too. Translated, he was making investments wherever he could to gain access to the Federal Teat. And it paid off. In 2013, the Pentagon awarded Pasternak’s company a $50 million grant to develop a prototype blimp for delivering cargo to military bases.
For the record, in addition to his fundraiser for Adam Schiff in 2013, Pasternak also hosted a fundraiser for Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) that year (his company is in her district).
In March of 2014, Igor Pasternak was recognized with a “Certificate of Honor” from the Ukrainian embassy, with their press release citing Pasternak’s “significant contributions to bilateral cooperation.” Also stated in the press release:
“Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US security.”
Interestingly, about that same time, Russia was making its move on the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea after the “Ukrainian Revolution.” As you may recall, President Obama was laying low in all of that, saying giving military aid to Ukraine would be a violation of international law.
Did Schiff want to help his fundraising friend?
One must wonder why Obama wasn’t helping the Ukrainians fend off the Russians. Was it due to his partnership with Vladimir Putin? Surely we can remember the video of Obama telling then-Russian President Medevev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” To which Medevev said, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir and I stand with you.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize Obama wanted to stay on Vladimir’s good side.
Adam Schiff appeared to have different motivations. While Obama was finding ways to avoid giving military aid to counter Russian aggression, ForeignPolicy.com reported:
“… House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined House Speaker John Boehner and an array of other Republicans in a letter to the White House pushing for arms for Ukraine.”
A ranking Democratic congressmen challenging the stance of a Democratic President? This is not common, but there it was, and yes, things changed. In March of 2015, the US sent money. As we see in The Telegraph;
“The US announced it was stepping up non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine on Wednesday with a $75m (£50m) package that includes armoured Humvees and surveillance drones.” [emphasis added]
Hmmm. Surveillance drones?
Six months later – surprise, surprise – Pasternak’s company, Aeroscraft Corporation, also known as Aeros, issued a press release, announcing a cooperative partnership between Aeros and the Government of Ukraine. Aeros would, “strengthen border protection” with “wide-area situational awareness capabilities” for Ukraine. The press release also said:
“The partnership with Ukraine, Aeros, and UkrOboronProm, first announced in Kiev earlier this month, will see the Ukraine-Russian border protected by a series of Aeros-made Elevated Early Warning Systems (EEWS).”
In simpler parlance, the Government of Ukraine bought Pasternak’s blimps using US taxpayers’ money.
By the way, curious about who UkrOboronProm is? They manage the various enterprises of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. And that’s their words, not mine.
Not just blimps: M-16s, too
So … in addition to the $50 million grant Pasternak received to develop prototypes for delivering US military cargo, Schiff’s friend also benefited from a $75 million aid package to Ukraine for providing airships to monitor Ukraine’s borders. But that isn’t all.
A little more digging led me to discover Aeros and UkrOboronProm did more than arrange for Ukraine to have blimps. In a January, 2017 Newsweek article, I learned these same organizations also deal in M-16s.
Today, Pasternak downplays the accusations that he’s an “arms dealer” (and so do many other left-leaning organizations), so to avoid any accusations that I’m twisting the facts, I’ll quote several paragraphs directly from Newsweek’s article (all emphasis added):
“Ukraine will produce M16s for use by its armed forces, as well as for export. The deal, therefore, is a piece of a larger plan to reform and expand Ukraine’s defense industry. Joint ventures with foreign partners is a key aspect of revamping Ukraine’s defense industry.”
“Aeroscraft, the American firm partnering with UkrOboronServis to produce M16s, is a California-based aviation company specializing in lighter-than-air aircraft—including airships intended for U.S. military use.”
“Pasternak, Aeroscraft’s founder and CEO, was born in Soviet Kazakhstan and founded his first company, Aeros Ltd., in Ukraine.”
Curious question: Why would someone who specializes in making blimps for 25 years suddenly start manufacturing guns? Could it be someone recommended Pasternak’s company and said it would be “good business?” Just askin’.
Facts are facts
To reiterate, in all of this I’m not making any accusations – I’m simply stating facts and asking questions. Questions that ought to be answered.
Also, let me be clear. I’m not calling Pasternak an “arms dealer,” although the facts show that he does, in fact, deal in M-16s in Ukraine … and started doing so after Ukraine received its $75 million military aid package from the United States. But why did Pasternak, a blimp specialist, start manufacturing guns?
I’m also not saying Schiff was helping his friend Pasternak by pushing for that $75 million defense aid package to Ukraine, even though the aid package was pushed by Schiff after Pasternak hosted a fundraiser for the man in his own home. But isn’t it convenient that Pasternak got that contract to supply blimps to Ukraine? Who suggested it?
Questions that need answers
I agree with the questions my friend raised earlier – we should consider the possibility that large-scale kickbacks are occurring. After Schiff and Pelosi discovered that Trump and Zelensky talked about uncovering corruption in their two countries, they both acted like someone spiked their cocktails with crazy juice. Based on their behavior, I think there’s a good possibility they’re hiding something, and if so, Americans deserve to know what it is. After all, it’s OUR money that might be involved.
In Part 2 of this topic, I will share facts that go beyond circumstantial evidence, showing how Democratic operations in Ukraine may finally be getting exposed.
Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and popular keynote speaker. In addition to working with teams and individuals to help them achieve workplace excellence through improving their emotional intelligence and improving the way they do training, he’s also a veteran and a Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism while standing firmly against crony capitalism. Daniel writes on both workplace issues and political issues for multiple publications. Reach Daniel for help with your workplace through his website, MyWorkplaceExcellence.com. For things political, use @newbookofdaniel on Twitter.