Ten years ago, I was one of the only journalists in America willing to ask a simple question: was the black ledger fabricated?
On August 18, 2016, I published a piece in the Washington Times — “New York Times Evidence Against Trump Advisor Paul Manafort May Not Stand Up In Court“ — examining the “black ledger” that had supposedly surfaced in Ukraine, showing off-the-books cash payments to Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The story hit like a bomb. Manafort resigned two days later. The Russia collusion narrative was off and running.
I wasn’t buying it.
What I reported then — and what the mainstream media spent years ridiculing — is now confirmed. Special prosecutor Joe diGenova’s team has obtained bombshell new evidence, confirmed this week by Paul Sperry, that the 2016 election was interfered with not by Russia, but by Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
The evidence:
• Ukrainian officials leaked false Manafort financial records to influence the election
• A Ukrainian MP has testified on tape: “I have a tape of these law-enforcement officials saying they did it — they attempted to overthrow the United States government on behalf of Hillary Clinton in 2016”
• Ukraine’s own General Prosecutor stated there was enough evidence to open a criminal investigation
• DiGenova has onboarded a dedicated federal investigator focused solely on Ukraine
The black ledger wasn’t a discovery. It was a fabrication — an intelligence operation, laundered through the New York Times.
Hellbound and Down 